|
looking to sell 75 bitcoins for $1000, you cover the western union fees to get the money to me. I'll also happily take cash if you are close enough to me to make that happen. I am in Eastern Ohio.
|
|
|
|
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=286217If congress imposed a 100% tax on everyone making over $250k, confiscated all of last year's profits by the Fortune 500 companies, and took all assets of America's 400 billionaires...we could fund our gov't for 8 months. WOW...WTF do they use all that cash on?!? Does it go back to helping society? It seems like the only thing they achieve is greater and greater debt. A good portion of it they gave to those same billionaires and companies (at least the ones in the finance industry) |
|
|
|
Congratulations. You've missed the entire point of my argument whilst spotting why I wasn't complaining about the existence of wealth disparity in general. It seems the entire point changes fairly regularly. The issue here is not that the ditch digger has more money than the CEO, but that the poor have to justify their money in the eyes of the market in a way that the rich don't. If a ditch digger fails to dig efficiently they'd get the sack, but there's no way of sacking the wealthy if they enrich themselves at the expense of real progress - the only way they can lose their wealth is through gross incompetence. How can a ditch digger lose money that's in his bank account? And even the wealthiest person can be fired. CEOs are actually a good example. They can run company after company into the ground through bad management and still leave each job with lots of money, because the other board members that appoint them are also members of the CEO class and in on the take. You've got an entire group of people enriching themselves at the expenses of driving others down. The same is true for a ditch digger. Generally, no matter how bad a job he does, he still gets paid for his time. He can work for company after company getting paid for however long it takes them to figure out he's a lousy ditch digger. A wealthy person who makes his money from investments cannot be fired. His capital can be confiscated but that is a different matter entirely. |
|
|
|
I think the incompatibility arises from how each ideology defines property. Canarchy advocates for extremely strong property rights. I'm not to sure about Sanarchy, it seems that they vary from weak property rights to no property rights. Nonetheless, this has the effect of completely changing how each society will function. One is where control is defined by 'capital' and the other is based somewhat on 'public opinion'. If I own all the capital then I can do whatever I want with it. Compared with; if I misuse my capital, others can take it from me despite having no prior 'right' to it.
An interesting consequence in the various views of property rights (in Sanarchy) is that the end result of some versions of Sanarchy is very similer to what a Canarchist would want. All versions of Canarchy allow groups to from socialised communes if they buy the property first. Only a number of Sanarchists, I think a minority, would allow capitalists to do the same. That number would allow communes, if they democratically voted, to form a hirachal system with uneven division of resources, with money, investment, savings, hiring other people and so on. A typical Ancap would expect the capitalist communes to outcompete and eventually become the majority anyway. Creating the same result which he originally wanted. This also means that, from a Sanarchist point of view Canarchy would evolve into Sanarchy because the socialist communes would outcompete the capitalist organizations around them. The issue is the redistribution of wealth that has been acquired through force, without this a Canarchist society would rather quickly evolve into feudalism. |
|
|
|
Don't take this deal and starve is definitely a threat of violence.
Assuming the speaker will somehow induce you into starving, then yes. Or if the reason you would starve would is something out of the ordinary (for example, you landed on his island due to a plane crash), then yes. But if the result of your failure to take the deal would be your starving through no fault of the offeror and not through any emergency, then no. Otherwise, people could never do anything and others would always be forced to provide for their every survival need. After all, not doing things for them would mean they starve and therefore be a threat of violence. If a person doesn't take any action to obtain food for themselves, if you don't give them free food, they will starve. If they have no place to live and won't do anything to get one, if you don't let them live with you, they will freeze. And so on. Nature starves people who don't act to secure food, not the people who didn't feed them. If the land is all owned by the ruling class then it is very similar to having landed on their island. |
|
|
|
Yes, too bad for us. We (those of us who have bitcoins) could be millionaires if it weren't for people like you wanting to keep the bitcoin economy exclusive. I think the real problem is people like you that think Bitcoin is some kind of get-rich-quick scheme rather than being a currency. It prevents outsiders from seeing the potential and focusing solely on "ZOMG PONZI SCHEME!" I'm glad the price is currently stabilized because that's what we need, not volatility. Fractions? What fractions? We're not dealing with numbers like 1/2, 1/16, 1/5, 1/7, or whatever. Just decimals. Since we're being pedantic, decimals are fractions. They were originally called "decimal fractions". Stable prices are good for merchants, it means they don't need to keep readjusting their prices. I think the stable price is going to be a lot higher than the price right now though. |
|
|
|
|
build it Stuffe, the source code is there. If it is actually better than bitcoin it will replace it.
|
|
|
|
This is only true if there is true consent -- ie; a relative equality of power on both sides of the table. This is not the case currently at labor vs capital owner negotiations. The only thing that matters is a lack of threat of violence. That's true consent. Don't take this deal and starve is definitely a threat of violence. |
|
|
|
Once upon a time, this thread looked like it might be going somewhere interesting. Now it's just the same-old same-old.
A discussion of where rights come from or whether they exist and what their relationship is to liberty/freedom (ie; can you have liberty with a non-rights based approach?) etc might be interesting....
Rights are generally not a very popular approach for left wing Anarchists, we do however believe very strongly in Liberty. Whether our approach is effective at realizing that goal is open to interpretation, but although the periods of Left Libertarian society have generally been fairly brief several have matched the ideal fairly closely. Catalonia Spain during the civil war being one and Revolutionary Ukraine being another. |
|
|
|
The US dollar isn't officially accepted in a lot of countries. Its not a big deal.
Maybe you don't understand my links. Let me do the quick summary translation for you : If you get caught using us dollar for any transactions inside my country, You goto Jail!This is only an information for you guys dollar holders, not an offender message  Yes you are right Hawker, US dollar still have values, but just don't forget to exchange it first  jail. . . is not comfortable place to sleep These extreme Laws is made recently by the govt, ussualy they never do that to US dollar. I don't know why they act like that ? dis-trust ? affraid of inflation ? zimbabwe ?Does that mean it is illegal to convert it (that is a transaction) or is there an exception for currency converters? |
|
|
|
I heard it was used a significant amount during alcohol prohibition. I'd like to see people do the same for non-violent drug charges.
Do those tend to be tried by jury a lot? Honest question. no, but non-violent drug offenders might be wise to take it to a jury more often. Jury Nullification is actually fairly widely known, if not universally, and support for drug prohibition is less than half the population in many parts of the country. |
|
|
|
However you feel about jury nullification, I'm sure you wouldn't be so happy about reverse jury nullification -- where the law contains a loophole, the jury agrees the accused falls into the loophole, but convicts him anyway because the thing the loophole is stupid. (Not that there's anything inconsistent in this position. Just remember, many crimes have victims.)
Personally, I believe that in an ideal world, jury nullification would be a serious evil. However, our world has some massively screwed up laws, and refusing to enforce a bad law is a virtue.
As Arrow said, this is harder to do, also there are cases where people should NOT be falling through those loopholes, and i am glad that Juries can make sure those people are punished. |
|
|
|
Right, so you don't actually have any property rights. I said the only thing stopping you, which has nothing to do with rights. However, if we follow your logic then nobody has any rights at all. The only thing stopping you from murdering me is more firepower so according to your logic, I don't have the right to not be murdered. That's a pretty absurd viewpoint. Why? Where do rights come from if not from enforcement by superior force? |
|
|
|
|
I'm a left winger who is opposed to government, so I don't know who would be redistributing these kidneys.
I do know that allowing someone to die when you have the ability to save his life is morally wrong, but much easier when that person is far away and not visible to you. Sleeping rough is not as bad as dying of kidney failure (well, I don't know for sure, I've slept rough before but never died of kidney failure, but I assume it is worse) so the moral imperative to donate a kidney is actually stronger. If my daughter were dying of kidney failure and you were a match and refused to give her a kidney I would forcibly take it from you, to protect my daughter's life and I feel I would be morally right to do so. (assuming I had a doctor willing to do the operation under those circumstances of course) If you did the same to me I think you would be justified in doing so.
|
|
|
|
I guess I should had been more clear. If the more 'skilled' workers applied for a job which normally people with GED would apply for, who would you hire? One with a degree or a GED? Now the only way they would get hired is if they where paid less then the minimum, but mainly, it may help bring back business that has been sent overseas.
The one with the GED, the one with the degree will leave as soon as a better job becomes available. The one with the GED will not. |
|
|
|
They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks. it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.
Bails out home owners at the expense of home buyers and future tax payers. You can't make an economic calculation without looking at both sides of the equation. I'm not saying its the right thing to do, I'd have preferred they let the banks go under, but if they are gonna bail out, might as well bail out as many people as possible, especcially if it doesn't raise the rpice of the bailout. |
|
|
|
|
They shuld have done this before bailing out the banks. it bails out the banks and the home owners at the same time, for the same price.
|
|
|
|
There are a lot of talk going on around the world about virtual currency such as Bitcoins and others.
Many are arguing that virtual currency is a reality and that it's here to stay. I personally agree with this proposition but virtual currency shouldn't be used as an alternative store of value asset only.
Bitcoin is probably the most known and talked virtual currency in these days. From what we can see in the exchange markets, that have been created to trade Bitcoin, there is a lot of daily activity in the trading environment.
What we cannot see is a similar activity in the retail environment either for on-line or real world transactions. Aside from a few examples, this virtual currency does not seem to be taking off.
What are the reasons for this ? Well there are many.
First of all, aside from the early adapters , "mining" Bitcoin for the individual has become a difficult task.
This means that if you want to have some of this Bitcoin , you can exchange them for your fiat currency on the exchange markets. So you have to take some of your stored "real money" and use them to store them again into Bitcoin. Unless, of course, you have a real intention to use this Bitcoin to buy something that you like and you need/want to buy.
Second, why do you have to convert your "real money" into Bitcoin if you need/want to buy something ? Because Bitcoin allows you and the seller to have a cost free transaction in the same way you would have if you would hand over your cash money to the vendor. In addition handling cash money is also a cost both for you and the vendor.
Third, is the vendor giving you any additional advantage if you pay in Bitcoin like, for example, a small discount ? Not that I am aware of. But might be possible that same are doing it. What I know for sure is that if you pay with real cash money instead of your credit card, you have a very high possibility to get a small discount if you dare asking for it.
Fourth, there are the exchange markets that makes the conversion rate change and it is difficult for you and the vendor to forecast its future value. You may exchange your "real money" into Bitcoin today or you can accept a payment in Bitcoin as a vendor today at a fixed current rate and find out a few days later that the value of Bitcoin has dropped. Or it has increased. This uncertainty, surely complicates the matter even more. Unless you see into Bitcoin a form of investment in the hope that its value will go sky high someday.
Many might argue that even your "real money" are subject to the same process described above.
All fiat money of course are subjected to inflation and deflation. And the conversion rate between them vary daily. Some might also argue that fiat money might collapse and that you would end up having a bank account filled up with numbers that have no purchase value at all.
So, it seems that what we need for a virtual currency to become a usable currency is a sort of stability of its value. In order to accomplish this, we have to reduce the trading and increase the actual use of our beloved virtual currency.
There are many that think that a world without any sort of monetary system would be a much better world. This is the key concept of a Resource Based Economy. It is my opinion that the present monetary system is just a paradigm, a model. Therefore it is subjected to a shift. And a Global Virtual Currency ( not necessarily Bitcoin ) could be a good entry point for the shift to occur. But it needs to be available for everybody for a Resource Based Economy to take place !!
I am working on this. Stay tuned.
I offer a significant discount. I charge $1 per minute/card to people arranging payments by paypal, I charge .05 BTC to people paying with bitcoins. Also, if people choose to go through the provider that I do many of my readings through they will pay $4 per minute, so the bitcoin price is less than a quarter of the normal price. |
|
|
|
|
This would be a change away from one of the basic concepts bitcoin is founded on. However you could take the sourcecode and make your own velocitycoin, or whatever, that works in this way.
|
|
|
|
The bitcoin has consistently demonstrated that it will go lower and continue to reach new lows. Yet, it is currently trading close to $15 dollars.
Who would be buying at these prices?
What i think is either speculators are only buying to try and sell at a small spread, so they do not care what the price is, as they will sell very short term.
Manipulators are trying to maintain price and are trying to keep the price high so that they can build confidence in bitcoin and sell the majority of their bitcoins higher?
Your average investor just thinks bitcoins are worth it, and are buying them up.
I can not see the average investor buying bitcoins at this price, knowing that it will most likely continue a downward trend, and they could also wait a few days and buy low.
So what is going on? What is causing the price to continue going higher after it has been hitting new lows? Or how I would like to put it, who is dumb enough to buy at $15 now, when it was just $11 yesterday, and will probably hit that again very shortly?
new lows? Just recently bitcoins were trading below a dollar and dollar parity was a high that many didn't foresee for a year or so. Bitcoin has consistently risen in value, with some corrections. It consistently falls in price only if you take a very small sample of time, starting at a point that was extremely high compared to the rest of the history of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
