Yes. It should be legal. Although I believe you should be murdered and the food taken by the starving even if it's illegal. Then he should face the consequences of doing something illegal.

Yes you can threaten as much as you want. but you can't demand me to do what i have the right/need/want/like to do.

I actually don't give a fuck about threat , threatening is just words and doesn't damage. If someone threatens to Kill you , doesn't mean he will actually do it. To be accused of attempt of murder you actually have to take action to fulfill the murder. So in my view is OK even to threaten.

I have the right to live but you can't demand me to live.
I have the right to work but you can't demand me to work.
I have the right to vote but you can't demand me to vote.
You don't have the right to kill me , but you can threaten me as much as you want , you should be watched but not penalized for threatening.
A country becomes nuclear , it can threaten to use the Nukes , but there shouldn't be a action against that country only if it uses it's Nukes. NO PREEMPTIVE STRIKES.

Good for him he took the stupid rich guy's/women's money. He should eat more and shit more and get more money for it. I'm kinda amazed he puled it of. Still deserves respect. The buyer on the other hand =))

I totally agree with you . There will be one product which will matter and that is energy . That will be the greatest battle . We have the technology to provide enough energy for free but this is clearly not wanted , because of economics.

Economics created the current situations. Forgetting economy will solve it.

I'm not against IP laws but i will never support them.

A idea is worthless the moment you have it and for as long as you are keeping it hidden in your mind. The moment you put that idea in practice it becomes priceless , and the moment it's copyable it becomes infinite. IP laws don't protect the inventor from copycats it just hands him a monopoly on an now infinite resource. Now i'm not saying that the inventor shouldn't be reworded for it's idea but IP laws don't reward him , they just grant him monopoly then people can choose to buy it's monopoly infinite resource or not. And as good as a idea is, it  on it's own is worthless , being put in practice is just as important , and the most important is it's utility to people.

A good IP law would be one that promotes and advertises the original , maybe even make the copycats advertise the original so the public can choose to reward the inventor and reward the best practitioner , and one that wouldn't cost me a dime to register my idea.

Any law that ain't based on educating the public ain't worth having. Because in the end the public is the one who choses ,pays and profits. If they don't give a damn about inventors then we shouldn't have inventions. We have to educate the people to buy from those practitioners that support the inventor , if they don't then there isn't much you can do even with IP laws and in my opinion there shouldn't be something you could do.

I have to ask you: If you had the cure for cancer would you patent it and ask royalties or would you leave it in the public domain?

If you patent it are you any better then a drug dealer? Or a kidnapper (give me X*$ or you die)? Or you may choose to make it public domain after you die , that would make your murderer a hero? Or you may choose to keep it to yourself without ever disclosing it , would that make any difference to anybody , maybe to you if you had cancer , but that's it , the public won't know about it so there won't be any cure therefore no benefit. Or you may make it public domain and make contracts with some companies that can produce it and ask them to pass part of the profit and ask the people to buy from those if they want to support you. In my opinion not having something is far better than someone having a monopoly on something especially something infinite.


I would like to give Tesla as an example . He gave us many things but most of it's inventions were kept secret , and in the end he died penniless , and the public never benefited from all his inventions, most ended up in the states arms and will never get out of there. So how did we benefit here from the ip laws or even him?

In my view the protest was a failure because we ended up debating about property and about the freaking grass. But yes they DESERVE respect for having the guts to protest and go through with being arrested. If in the end people realize about what the protest was about and forget about the capitol grass which i already stated has nothing to do with them being arrested and with the protest and start doing something about the issue then it won't be a failure anymore. I think they should go back to the drawing board because the capitol grass stole their protest .

That is exactly their let's call it moronity . They wanted more effect. I believe they thought that if they do it on their lawn they wouldn't get to much attention , and most probably no police would show up. But yes you are right this is a moronic protest because the capitol grass stole their shit ). If they want to protest against permits there are far better ways to do it. They should sell underground and fund children who want to open stands

The place has nothing to do with the arrests. Even if you would do it (sell without a permit) from your house it would still be Illegal . You can have a ice cream truck  and roam the ROADS ,and sell but you need a PERMIT. IT IS SIMPLE . THEIR UNLAWFULNESS isn't related at all with the capitol grass . NOT EVEN the PROTEST isn't related to the capitol grass but to the fact that you need a DAMNED PERMIT to sell a freaking LEMONADE. THEIR PROTEST is about making "children" PAY FOR A PERMIT TO SELL LEMONADE .

THE PERMIT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH KEEPING PUBLIC PLACES FREE OF LEMONADE STANDS BUT WITH GETTING TAXES OUT OF YOUR EVERY ACTIVITY.

Public property can be of two kinds: Public property , like roads , parks , forests , monuments where the OWNER in this case the public through it's representative the STATE can't chose who has access or not, and Private Public Property , like all companies owned by the state , and agencies , etc. , places where the OWNER in this case the public through it's representative the STATE can choose who has access or not. If a property is private from what i know you have to signal this and then the public can't have unconditional access. If a property is simply public then everyone has access on to it and from what i see that property is simply public , SO THE PEOPLE WERE PROTESTING BY DOING SOMETHING ILLEGAL . The police people did their job if it's their job to arrest those without a vending permit but that has nothing to do with the place they were doing it.

They will go underground .... that is all that will happen ... This war can't be won through Law , only through education , as long as people care if they saw a man on TV and don't pay attention to the politicians words and actions and never analyze them then it doesn't matter what laws you pass , you might make it a little harder for them to get funded but they will , and the payback would need to be much bigger.

I'm talking about the distribution company. I don't care if it's controlled by Satan as long as every provider is free to plug in and every provider contributes accordingly to its debit  to the repairs and the company doesn't make a profit. Now if this means government control or not i'm not sure .

Could you please provide some links so that i can hit their head against the computer screens . I knew that in the UK there was something like this but i couldn't find something fast:(

I included the provider metter as a mean to control that he actually provided the watter .

thank you

This question is regarding pseudo monopolies like watter distribution , electricity distribution , gas , etc.

I had a huge argument with two of my uncles and one of my cousins regarding distribution , and i stated that if the distribution company was public meaning it would provide the network for "free"  to anyone who can offer the product , for example watter , at the same quality , ultimately making it the same watter , then this would enable huge competition and consequently the lowest prices for the consumers. And they argued that this can't work because you can't make the difference between the watter you consume. But then again i stated that the watter is the same watter only the price is different at all providers and so you don't need to make the difference because there isn't any , just the price. But they said that because the price is different they are different products and so it can't work.

So in my view thing would work like this:

The distribution company creates the network and provides the initial watter too fill the network and then the providers can contract with whomever wants to consume their product and need to fill the network with the corresponding quantity of watter someone that has a contract with them has consumed. If no contract you provide no watter. There would be two meters one at the provider and one at the consumer .

Pleas tell me what you think and why you think it  

Thank you

A candy bar costs as much as people are willing to pay - what companies make profit. I don't believe a candy bar costs almost a dollar because the dollar fell in value but because people became more "stupid" and the majority acquired a somehow better life and are willing to pay more for everything. We left everything gain value and we devalued our currencies because we are stupid. We always buy new cars because they are newer although the technology in the cars stays almost the same or is little upgraded . We accept goods that are programed to fail, we go to McDonald and eat , all this because of credit. Credit set us on a mindset that things value more and more , as we gained access to more and more money through credits we gave them less and less value. Inflation/deflation ain't a natural fenomenon that can't be understood it is US. We give value to gold , to the USD , to JPY , food , electronics , metals , whatever. Nothing out there has "real value" because there is no such thing as real value. A piece of moldy bread has no value to you but for someone on the brink of starvation it might be worth all the gold in the world.

I guess you are talking about North Korea . Then i'm 100% sure they have 100% free school . All communist countries ensured free education to the population. The thing they don't have is freedom , so in terms of getting all people "educated" they have some advantages over some capitalist countries . I don't know how it is in South Korea but in Europe most countries have state funded education . For example in Romania you can basically be funded by the state up to doctorate but only if you have good grades over the years in high-school and at the baccalaureate exam. But the baccalaureate exam and high-school are shit , most are just theoretic so you aren't certified in any field , there are some that give certification but most don't , and the baccalaureate exam is just  a exam that basically should say you are up to standards. :| but it has no value whatsoever , only for those that want to go to college because the media over high-school is added to the media of the baccalaureate exam and then divided by 2 and then this media basically says if you will be funded by the state or not , if you aren't funded at the popular colleges you can be funded at the not so popular colleges , so again you are somehow pushed where you don't want to be and then you quit or you learn just enough to pass the year , and this are wasted resources. If your grades aren't high enough you have to pay ... about 2-4 medium salaries /year .The payed places are almost double than the state funded one.

In my opinion the education system should be totally funded by the state but also very flexible in the sense that education should follow the social/economic trends , leaving people choose what they want to learn and hire teachers dynamically  in accordance to demand. i think we don't need colleges and high-schools and all this steps we just need some kind of proof of knowledge in the certain fields that someone wants to work and there are some fields that don't need any kind of proof of knowledge .

What i really hate in current times is that people put way to much value on certification and now if you are certified in a field you have a minimum wage and if you aren't you have a smaller minimum wage which is totally stupid. Or businesses prefer college people (doesn't matter if in field or not) over non college and this incentives-es people to go to college doesn't matter where even if you have to pay , because you have better chances to find work , and because college teachers get money from the paying students they tend to pass them the year even if they know shit. And people know this is happening but they don't give a fuck and politicians and college profesors are happy because ... politicians aren't bugged by the professors for funds and profs get more money . So every body is kinda happy .

To me this system seems about cosmetisation for job and not about education for job.

Sure bro that is the point of the state ... to provide equal chances for all it's citizens , or at least to try . We are not equal , some are smarter some are fitter , and some are quite stupid. In the end it doesn't matter because stupid people might give birth to smart people and vice versa , but ignorance can be "healed" , stupidity unfortunately not. Ignorance has many causes: Lack of money is one , but the most important one is the "system" . Because people are pushed in to a standard , everybody , learns the same shit , weal this is really stupid and gives birth to ignorance because when you don't like something you will most likely not learn it , unless you are actually stupid and really believe the standard shit you get to learn in schools actually helps you. Almost 50% of the things learned in schools is useless to almost 90% of the people. Schools should be more free , you like literature you learn literature , you like math learn math , you should learn whatever you want. But states "need" to indoctrinate it's people , with self written history , national literature , all sorts of math equations that almost no one will ever use , etc. Schools shouldn't be about grades and certification , but about knowledge . Certification is a totally different thing than knowledge , and I actually don't give a hand job about them.


So yeah the point of the state is to take care of those that can't , but it's role ain't to ensure you become standard , and not even to cure ignorance , just to provide the way to escape it if you choose to, some ignorance is good , we can't learn everything , everywhere , we also need time to process information , and to apply it . But there is one thing we should never be ignorant to and that is politics, unfortunately this essential field in our existence is one of the most ignored by the masses.

@JeffK

Could you please explain what's to LOL about??

I don't get it.

So you are saying that i should put my money in a brick and mortar Bank , because it can keep them safe and then you tell because i can't defend against navy seals? Are you serious? You telling me that a physical place were people store large amounts of bitcoins is safer in face of the state than anybodies house? Not even Iraq was able to hold it's wealth in face of the seals .

And bro , not even now you ain't forced to keep your BTC in your house . You can keep them off site , on an usb , a bitbill , cd , just encrypt your wallets and bury them somewhere, and even if you keep huge amounts in house don't tell. Now if you keep a million USD worth of bitcoins in your house and you let people know , the incentive to be robbed is quite higher than the risk unless you hire some thugs. You don't want to do that ? Take your usb to a safe deposit box at a brick and mortar bank , you don't need a dedicated one. The dedicated one has one big value on it's head, It is a threat to the established system so it ain't safe in any way.

My wonder world works like this: If the incentive to do something is big enough then nothing can stop it from happening. Not even the seals or the pope or the queen or any law system. The law system ain't actually protecting you , the law system works by RAISING THE RISK through fines and punishment ,applied AFTER something has been COMMITTED . That is exactly what you are doing by buying a gun . But the best way to protect your BTC is not to brag about how much you have.

Buy a gun. Build a crossbow . Kill the bitch that enters your house . Done. I won't keep my money in a bank only if it gives me a big enough piece of the profit. Otherwise i won't lend it. The bank shouldn't be more secure than someone's home. If the guards at the bank are allowed to carry weapons i should also . And really after all the shit that banks did with the money they had you still think that banks are safe?

Can gold exist without brick and mortar banks? Yes . So can USD , bitcoin , salt , grain, etc.

USD has value because many people trust the banks , government , corporations , etc. even if the banks would colapse do you think people would start to barter. No they will use currency , whatever currency they will have more faith in . The basics of gold and any free traded currency aren't different . Both get value from your FAITH. The problem with gold is that huge volumes are in the property of states  , the problem with bitcoin is that a huge volumes are is in the hands of early adopters and the problem with fiats is that huge volumes can be printed . All this huge volumes in a few peoples hands gives market rigging capabilities.

The only question is who do you trust more? Early bitcoin adopters , states , banks , No one?

Maybe they sold some when the rate was 13 14 and then when they saw the rate fell they bought back , and recouped. and made some nice profit