If you're okay with violence being used against me if I, say, avoided the draft, then by all means, carry on with your way of thinking. Statists agree that violence is the answer. You're okay with me dying for your narrow-minded view of how everyone should act (within a plot of land with imaginary borders.)
Statists are sociopaths. Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it. Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.
(I came here for the Bitcoin, and I stayed because I liked the posts like this.) |
|
|
|
- Workable justice system in An-Cap? BAM! Arbitration! They're never able to explain how it would actually work and why it wouldn't be utterly corrupt by design. It's just supposed to vaguely somehow kind-of resemble mostly unrelated international trade arbitration.
Actually there's extensive literature explaining how private justice works. A good example is the Libertarian Manifesto by Rothbard. But most people who want to argue on forums aren't interested in familiarizing themselves with the opposition's educated representatives and their lines of thought.[/list] |
|
|
|
there's so much Libertarian and Anarchy evangelism all over the forum. Hence the need for a sticky thread to contain the contagion! I repeat my request that all support for the state be confined to one sticky thread. This ought to go both ways, after all. And personally I don't care about evangelizing anybody. I simply ask that people withdraw their support for any force used to curtain my liberties, just as you would not support a cop who would arrest Rosa Parks for sitting in the whites only section of a bus or (hopefully) would not cheer a cop for arresting someone for marijuana possession or homosexual activity. |
|
|
|
Was this supposed to refute anything? Epic fail. Your whole argument amounts to expressing your opinion about the way things should be and then saying it should be that way. i have never claimed that i was not biased(i think...). whats your problem? libertards are libertards.
And statists are emotionless sociopaths. You must've missed a whole lot of debating last year. Myrkul and Co. have been debunked hundreds of times on dozens of counts -- his Anarcho-Capitalism stuff is so full of holes it's like Swiss cheese (but smells more like Raclette). His whole zero government argument basically boils down to hating taxation, attaching emotional labels like 'theft' and 'violence' because he was "brutally born into an existing system" rather than politely asked "would His Highness like to voluntarily participate in society like everyone else?" There are always plenty of exceptions (like military stuff) but loads of government services like education, health care etc., can easily justified from a moral standpoint. E.g.: - public education: some children have incompetent parents who would be useless at home schooling. Home-schooling also sounds extremely inefficient compared to at least learning in groups (I guess some people have too much money...).
- public healthcare: various vulnerable groups exist (e.g.: sick children, mentally disabled, victims of freak accidents, the elderly) and basic human values suggest that help should be given even if there's no capital advantage or foreseeable profit motive.
- 'home' care: orphanages, homeless shelters, homes for the elderly, etc.
- A justice system with a 3rd party that can be either impartial (not being paid by either side), or, more often: represent the potential hidden victim (society at large).
The above examples should be self-explanatory, but for die-hard Anarchy fanboys like Myrkul, they're not. There's always some half-baked retort that has been prepared earlier on just about everything imaginable. - Workable justice system in An-Cap? BAM! Arbitration! They're never able to explain how it would actually work and why it wouldn't be utterly corrupt by design. It's just supposed to vaguely somehow kind-of resemble mostly unrelated international trade arbitration.
- All those other social needs described above? BAM! Charities and volunteers! Ad hoc and unmetered donations by a small segment of society ought to cover it!
There were even some threads where the Anarchists were OK with human slavery and trafficking because it was just a side-effect of "free market" contracts. Thus it's the Anarchists who come across as cold-blooded psychos. Because Bitcoin kind-of relies on the Libertarian religion to incubate it, a nasty side-effect is that (rather than just supporting Bitcoin) there's so much Libertarian and Anarchy evangelism all over the forum. Hence the need for a sticky thread to contain the contagion! |
|
|
|
I sold all mine a few days ago for about $101-$100 each. I had about 610 bitcoin before I sold.
I plan on buying more when it bottoms out which could be some time from now.
I still very much believe in Bitcoin for the future however wild speculative bubbles followed by crashes like this won't do it much good.
Sure they will... Bubbles attract business people who recognize that this is part of the price discovery process for any new asset. It will take a few months for the new businesses to get off the ground, but at least Bitcoin is on their radar now. Bitcoin first attracted my attention when it crashed in 2011.  |
|
|
|
I'll be mining on testnet. Pro. Sounds very profitable. I believe everyone else should do the same.  I of course cannot mine on testnet because...umm...it violates my religious beliefs. Ferengi rule of acquisition #187 |
|
|
|
With two or three units, mining solo is an option. spiccioli You kids today! In my day, if you actually had your own Avalon, you could solo mine with just one of them! And it would pay for itself in a matter of days! |
|
|
|
Jealousy is a moral evil? I would have to disagree. I view jealousy as a positive character trait. I would see the lack of it as, at best, indicating a very low-value relationship or, at worst, indicating a possible mental disorder. “Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy - in fact, they are almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other.” ― Robert A. Heinlein I didn't realize Heinlein had fallen victim to that kind of disrespectful thinking! On the contrary, it's not disrespectful at all. Indeed, quite the opposite. Claiming to own another person is the vilest disrespect you could show them. I don't see anything disrespectful about expecting people in an exclusive relationship to be exclusive, nor about valueing the relationship highly enough that one feels badly if the other does not faithfully hold to that part of the deal. And I don't see how that would imply ownership. People may pertain to each other in an exclusive way and even use the word "my" without implying ownership, e.g., "My father," "My wife," "My boyfriend," "My teacher," "My friend." None of those relationships grant someone a right to control another. So, in an exclusive intimate relationship, if my partner is unfaithful and I feel awful about it (jealous), I think I am not the one with the problem. And in such a case, I am likely to ignore any terms of the contract, exit clause or not, and exit, seeing as how the contract has already been violated. And I am even more likely to do so if the person disrespectfully rakes me over the coals for feeling "jealous." But now I am so amazingly far afield of Bitcoin that I think I better ignore the politics subforum before I continue to get sucked up in this forever! |
|
|
|
Jealousy is a moral evil? I would have to disagree. I view jealousy as a positive character trait. I would see the lack of it as, at best, indicating a very low-value relationship or, at worst, indicating a possible mental disorder.
There are evil kinds of jealousy, and there are good kinds of jealousy. Covetousness might be a better term. For instance, it's generally not a good idea to hit on someone's wife. Coveting someone's wife would be bad. But if my wife is cheating on me with you and I'm coveting her, then it's good that I'm jealous. She's rightfully mine, and I have every right to want to take her away from you. The bible outlines a sense of ownership between the wife and the husband. (It goes both ways, mutual ownership, not just one way.) I don't think jealousy and covetousness are synonyms. |
|
|
|
Jealousy is a moral evil? I would have to disagree. I view jealousy as a positive character trait. I would see the lack of it as, at best, indicating a very low-value relationship or, at worst, indicating a possible mental disorder. “Jealousy is a disease, love is a healthy condition. The immature mind often mistakes one for the other, or assumes that the greater the love, the greater the jealousy - in fact, they are almost incompatible; one emotion hardly leaves room for the other.” ― Robert A. Heinlein I didn't realize Heinlein had fallen victim to that kind of disrespectful thinking! |
|
|
|
You mean... Like this?  Because that's how I feel about it. Yes! Yes! That's how I felt when I first read about Bitcoin! I love Bitcoin, too! Bitcoin is inherently shiny, at least to the right kind of geeks, and that is what gives it intrinsic value so that it can become money. |
|
|
|
The character prescribed as God changes between novels. I assume the "Christian God" is the New Testament version.
He's also clearly described as jealous and narcissistic throughout. He claims to be. Though it would be objectively evil for them not to be. The very behavior which is a moral evil for us is actually a moral necessity for them. Nevermind the whole unlimited being thing and all the implications that that entails. [/quote] Jealousy is a moral evil? I would have to disagree. I view jealousy as a positive character trait. I would see the lack of it as, at best, indicating a very low-value relationship or, at worst, indicating a possible mental disorder. Now, a lot of people do try to use "jealousy" as a disrespectful slur to try to pressure people to give in to what they want. Example: a cheating husband's wife discovers his texts to his mistress. She questions him about it, and he starts abusively branding her as "jealous," as if it is a problem for her to feel jealous (invested in their relationship) and not a problem for him to be playing the field. Use of the word is a control tactic of shaming other people in order to get what we want at their expense. Another great example of a word frequently used this way is "hoarding." There is nothing morally wrong with saving, but some people would benefit if others did not save so much, and so they apply disrespectful emotional pressure and shaming to try to alter the behavior of others so they can get what they want at their expense. But I'm now extremely far afield of both Bitcoin and politics, so I probably better go back to doing something productive. |
|
|
|
This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism Why are these three things linked together: free market, Americans, and libertarianism? Libertarianism and the free market go against everything America stands for. Is this a case of outside observers mistakenly thinking that America is libertarian and pro-free market? Because I assure you, it is not. |
|
|
|
I figured it out tonight!!!!! Mining away on my own alt chain...  I'll be posting a guide soon. Now every(computer-literate)one can have their own bitcoin Hope so. Also wonder what is going to happen to bitcoin when people realize a 16-17 year old just figured out how to tweak the source to make a coin after only one day. So much for bitcoin limited to 21 million (considering alt coins compete with bitcoin users and vendors). But it was going to happen sooner or later. Yeah I'm almost 18 now... (will be in August). When you do stuff as an adult it's just not as cool  Adults typically don't have time to do as many cool things! You, my friend, have an amazing leg up. |
|
|
|
I figured it out tonight!!!!! Mining away on my own alt chain... I'll be posting a guide soon. Now every(computer-literate)one can have their own bitcoin Hope so. Also wonder what is going to happen to bitcoin when people realize a 16-17 year old just figured out how to tweak the source to make a coin after only one day. So much for bitcoin limited to 21 million (considering alt coins compete with bitcoin users and vendors). But it was going to happen sooner or later. People can create an unlimited number of blockchains, and coins across blockchains. But transactions on The Bitcoin Blockchain can not be unlimited, and coins on that Blockchain are not unlimited. As you can see, coins on other blockchains are in no way equal in value to coins on The Bitcoin Blockchain. 1.0 Bytecoin is not worth 1.0 Bitcoin at all; thus, Bytecoin did not double the number of Bitcoins in existence. |
|
|
|
Why do you all rely on the bitcoin source? Why not make your own.
Reimplementation is another great project that would teach someone a lot and probably also be of some potential value to the community. For fun, I'd like to see an incompatible protocol blockchain with arbitrary precision values. Making the currency unit truly infinitely divisible. |
|
|
|
I figured it out tonight!!!!! Mining away on my own alt chain... I'll be posting a guide soon. Now every(computer-literate)one can have their own bitcoin You are the man, Garr. That's my point exactly. Now just a mere tweaking of the bitcoin code will not justify an alt-coin's existence.
Wise. |
|
|
|
Anyway, so far Novacoin is a shoo in, Bytecoin fans get to voting!!!! Can I vote twice? How bout a Bytecoin bounty? I guess since Bytecoin already has a block explorer there's a bit less demand. But I've seen them lock up at least once. I'm also mildly concerned that a lot of Bytecoin services (pool, explorer, exchange) seem to be concentrated in the founders' domain. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
