yes got scammed by him 100$ moneypak , admin you should block him faster

This looks really nice  . I haven't managed to get it working yet on my computer but I think this may be because my blocks are pretty out of date.

I'm interested in the code but I'm not sure where to start looking. Which parts have you written and which are part of other libraries (eg. I see web.py and python-bitcoin)?

I could potentially help out with some of the code. I know python pretty well and can help with Linux integration and packaging. In fact I have my own Bitcoin related project 'Wallet Manager' (it enables encryption and backup of wallets) which could be better off as a plugin or integrated feature of this app.

Unfortunately the licences of our programs are incompatible and I only like to code for free software which your program isn't because of the nc and nd flags.  I think changing the licence to something free would help to get more contributors. Personally I'd recommend the AGPL 3 since your app is basically a web app but anything from the WTFPL to the AGPL is fine IMO.

I'm not saying I wouldn't help out under the current licence but I don't code for free unless the software is free.

It is true that the slaves didn't have to pay anything. However, they were not receiving any payment for their work which is wrong.

You are still getting money for your work. For employees it is equivalent to earning a lower salary. For employers it is equivalent to paying a higher salary.

That is not true. We can save the one and the few, it would just cost more. In my opinion, this is a price worth paying.

Taxes are generally deducted directly from the salary (PAYE) - people rarely have to 'pay'.

Otherwise it is the rule of law. If you don't pay taxes you could be fined and if you refuse to pay the fines then you can be arrested. When arrested, you may verbally protest but if you use physical violence against the police they can use minimal force in self defence and to apprehend you. If you run away, the police may catch you and use minimal force to apprehend you.

What if nobody is willing to help? Then is it ok for me to die? Also, I would never threaten violence or death because both are immoral.

So it is fine for me to die even if I don't deserve death?

Well I believe rights apply to everyone alive now and in the future. There is no point worrying about people who lived in the past because they are dead now and there is nothing we can do to help them.

I'm sorry, but leave to where exactly? Just saying 'you could leave this society' is hardly respecting that person's liberty.

No.

It's strange you think so because I'm pretty sure Atlas is a capitalist libertarian and I'm a socialist libertarian.

I've edited the question to clarify this point.

Here is another point of disagreement. I believe in positive rights. I believe I have the right to education, healthcare and more.

Imagine I have a fatal, but treatable, illness. The treatment costs more than I could personally afford. Due to my financial situation I can't afford any health insurance.

In which, if any, of the following cases do I deserve to die and in which to I deserve healthcare:

• 1) I was a hard working citizen but due to no fault of my own I lost my job and am currently looking for work but unable to find any.
• 2) I am a child born into a poor family.
• 3) I have never worked due to laziness.
• 4) I did have a job but got fired for a valid reason. Due to my employment history, I am unable to find another job.
• 5) I committed a criminal offence and was sent to prison. I am now out of prison and can't find work due to my criminal record.

So you don't believe I have the right to education?

I am not a statist. I am a socialist libertarian.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you believe that because my family can't afford private education, I don't deserve to be educated?

This is an unfair generalisation of libertarians. Some libertarians think that their view is the only correct one but not all of us do. I'm sure the same could be said for some authoritarians and some people in between.

I am a libertarian and I wouldn't go as far as to say I am a moral relativist. I believe I am right on the whole about moral issues but I accept that I may be wrong and keep an open mind to other viewpoints. I also acknowledge that there are many difficult grey areas in morality.

It isn't like that. If you want to call it stealing then I would be stealing from the whole of society not you specifically. I suppose you also think that I am stealing now because I am benefiting from a public education, I have a subsidised bus pass and I go to an NHS dentist.

If I knew someone who was evading tax I would not turn them in to the police just as I don't turn in someone I know who is claiming benefits while working - however immoral I find that.

It is not like that and it is definitely not aiding and abetting - aiding and abetting requires me to do some action to help someone who is stealing from you. I would not do that. You seem to feel that if I lost everything and had to rely on the welfare state until I could make a living for myself, that would be stealing from you specifically.

I do not advocate any violence except for minimal force in self defence or when someone is arrested and will not come quietly.

A single leader who proposes decisions. For every decision there is a referendum, for which every citizen has the right to vote. This leader would be changed weekly - the next leader would be chosen by random from the citizens who have been leader the least number of times. I, as the founder, would be the initial leader to get the ball rolling. We would start with no laws and no taxes but these may be introduced if proposed by the leader and agreed upon through referenda.


No money initially but it may be introduced if decided upon by the democracy. Instead, there would be an understanding that everyone works if they are able and works in the areas in which they have strength. The goods of the labour should be shared between citizens as per need. Durable goods that are not needed can be saved for the future. Excess perishable goods can be shared equally between citizens as a reward for collective hard work.

If someone is able to work but refuses, other citizens may raise the issue with the leader. The leader can then decide to remove the citizenship of the person and there is a referendum on this decision. Without citizenship, a person loses their right to vote and be leader and loses their right to access the goods of the labour, although citizens are within their rights to share their own share of the goods with this person if they so wish. If this person  reforms, then the reverse process can happen and they can be reinstated into society.

No intellectual property or any other laws unless decided upon by the democracy.

Initially I would only allow people onto the island who are both able and willing to work because a small society could not support many people who don't work. Everyone should be fluent in a common language because communication is vital. This common language would be English for the simple reason that it is the only language that I can speak fluently. Initially, everyone would get weekends off and there would be 12 holiday days in a year - the solstices and equinoxes and the 2 days either side of these days. Initially, working hours would be 10:00-13:00 and 14:00-17:00. Obviously, all of this would be subject to change if the democracy decided.

I'd broadcast the benefits (probably over the internet) - the true democracy; the freedom; the strong sense of community; the short working hours.

There are probably some flaws here and this society wouldn't work at a much larger scale but is suitable for a small island. However, our current society has many flaws anyway and I believe that this fantasy society would be better.