Is anyone going to respond to that graph?
I assume that more criminals know how to use firearms in the US compared to other countries? Where did they learn? I blame Call Of Duty. Lets ban video games too. He later added ... without using a Straw Man?
|
|
|
|
What is mostly overlooked in the pro-gun argument is that people are just people, and the amount of people who are -unlike most of the people here- pehaps not particularly bright, or not (fully) aware of the responsibility it actually takes to be able to point a kiling device at someone, are the vast majority of the people who'll have and use a gun. That should clearly be a bad idea. And unsurprisingly almost ever piece of credible information supports this.
I'm quite certain that the people here are equally vulnerable to what you have said in the same proportion as the rest of the population. There is no need to convince the members that post here that they are special. Indeed. WE'RE smart enough to make laws for the rest of you idiots who can't be trusted with pointy things. Everyone finds themselves in the smarter half of the population. There is a word for this: paternalism. I think the important question isn't "should these people have guns?", it's "will the rules we create save more lives and respect human rights?" It's the effect of a law, not its intent, that matters. Personally I don't see the millitia/revolution argument as relevant. A modern insurgency would have no trouble acquiring guns, and they could even get the job done with just IED's and cell phones. |
|
|
|
|
I don't get it. If I want to save Bitcoins, and the guy I'm paying wants to save Bitcoins, why would we convert to Freicoins and back just for the transfer? Or any optional inflationary* currency for that matter?
* Demurrage in this case appears to work exactly the same as an increasing block subsidy would.
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone here ever tried non-GMO corn? I've only eaten corn that is the result of centuries of selective breeding, far removed from anything unmodified.
|
|
|
|
ok thanks, but what does it mean in practical terms? why is everyone talking about it? what effects will it have on the bitcoin world? thanks in advance!
CPU : GPU :: GPU : FPGA :: FPGA : ASIC As the market matures, mining will progress towards more and more specialized hardware. This will allow for a greater hashrate given the same price. CPU is general purpose GPU is for several specific applications (mostly games) FPGA is for even fewer applications, great at crypto ASIC models will be made specifically with Bitcoin in mind Bitcoin ASICs are controversial because at first one company will have a temporary monopoly on their manufacture. Expect a big boost in hash rate, and more people complaining about that monopoly until more manufacturers enter the market. Since this makes CPU even MORE obsolete, expect fewer botnet miners and more professional miners with lower profits - which in the long run goes to zero. Really it sucks for miners but is great for users.  |
|
|
|
depends what side of 'we' you are on?
Exactly! We ARE winning the drug war! The Silk Road is like the Napster of drugs - not quite perfected yet, but shows what is possible and what will become widespread and easy in the future. |
|
|
|
Explodicle,
If you're going to quote me, then quote what I said, or say it yourself.
Regarding your statement, clearly if any and every ugly and despicable act under the sun is not illegal in NAP-Land, then obviously other stuff is as well. Number 9 on your list is very interesting. The World analogizes to NAP-Land in some ways - nations are privately owned properties where residents pay monthly fees, but must abide by the security forces employed by the land owners, and the relations between these property owners are negotiated on a per situation basis.
Note that within that world (our world), there are feuds, atomic bomb explosions, mass murder, genocide, etc. Welcome to NAP-Land!
I've edited the orginal post to avoid any further confusion. I wouldn't consider the existing world to be NAP-land because most of those states don't follow the NAP or even try. Yes, this is because some things are broken that we need to fix - for example, by promoting an independent monetary system, or convincing people to stop supporting wars. Given that myrkul's stated plan is agorism, I thought it was clear to everyone that he isn't going to just buy an island and hope that everything works out. If you think force is a natural monopoly, then let's work together to fix that. We can accomplish anything! But I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth (sorry!) this is just my effort to understand myrkul's Ancap position. |
|
|
|
Considering math is in everything, I'd pick mathematical. I only know so little of math.
Mathematics is commonly referred to the "Science of Pattern." When I first learned that, I was hooked. Therefore, can I change my answer from Jell-O to Modèle Théorie (i4t)? ~Bruno~ I was thinking math too. Understand math, understand everything. |
|
|
|
|
I'm a mechanical engineer. My skills include 3D scanning & printing, reverse engineering, finite element analysis, tool & die design, computer programming, and process control. After college I spent 5 years designing jet engine service/assembly tools, and now design for a forge that makes giant metal rings.
|
|
|
|
In NAP-Land, nothing is illegal. For example, none of these are illegal:
1. Breaking DRM on your own phone
2. Possessing cannabis
3. Transferring wealth anonymously
4. Public nudity
5. Not buying health insurance
6. Sodomy, gay marriage
7. Fireworks
8. Refusing to pay for atom bombs
9. Moving across the world without anyone's permission
The following are common (very very common, based entirely on my own imagination)
1. Doing whatever the hell I want so long as it doesn't harm you.
FTFY Edit: for those who are unaware, "FTFY" stands for "fixed that for you". The meme is to take something someone else wrote and change key elements so it is "fixed". In this case I took FirstAscent's "good" laws and replaced them with laws that are much worse. |
|
|
|
|
Perhaps these three things share something in common:
1) I am using sock puppets.
2) FirstAscent and I are coordinating attacks.
3) Globalists are tricking the world's scientists about CO2.
|
|
|
|
|
Assuming it works and people actually run the fork, then it would be incredibly easy to exchange Statecoins for Bitcoins online. The exchange is our biggest weak point, so as long as a decentralized irreversible system exists, we benefit.
|
|
|
|
By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?
Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else. Whose sock puppet am I? I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal. I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate. It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since. Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad. You called it science, I called it a related current event. You really enjoy speaking for other people don't you. lolz  So first you get called out on a bullshit sockpuppet accusation. Then FirstAscent completely destroys your source. And your response to both... is to weasel out of addressing either. What a coward. |
|
|
|
|
I think what myrkul is proposing is an Ancap society actually populated with Ancaps. Democracy hinges upon the morality of our gunmen as well.
The funny part is that if we didn't already agree on the next actual fix, we wouldn't be here.
|
|
|
|
I'm a Utilitarian, but I still support the NAP because I think supporting the NAP will save more lives than supporting a different policy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_utilitarianismIn the "magic box" from the OP I voted for "2", but if it specified "by forming a group of organ thieves" I would have voted for "over 1 million". That team of organ thieves would inevitably be corrupted, but in my imagination the "magic box" was perfect. Maybe I voted wrong. I guess what that boils down to is that I might even have ended up a Communist if I thought it would actually work properly (which it doesn't). |
|
|
|
|
What confuses me are the people who picked between 2 and infinity. Why THAT number?
|
|
|
|
By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?
Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else. Whose sock puppet am I? |
|
|
|
True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved? Arbitration. Interpretation conflicts, damages, anything except an active assault can be resolved in Arbitration or mediation. So what if a self-sufficient group decides that <externality here> is harmless? They wouldn't have to care about hurting reputations outside the group by refusing to arbitrate. If another group has a huge problem with this, how is violence averted? Assume both groups believe in the NAP but disagree about the facts. |
|
|
|
I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head.
Heh... Which is why I waited. "The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence." This isn't 100%. Understand that the underlying principle of AnCap is the Non-Aggression Principle: No person has the right to initiate force or fraud on another person. Outside of that, anything goes. You can make your own rules, but if you try to force other people to follow them, that will be interpreted as an attack on the society, and an attempt to create a new government. It will not end well for you. True, but even the NAP can be interpreted differently between libertarians, and I would assume Ancaps too. Apologies if this sparks a huge tangent, but carbon pollution might be a good example - depending on your scientific ability, carbon emissions are anywhere between unimportant and an existential risk. Assuming the Ancap society is just as divided as this forum is, how would/should interpretation conflicts be resolved? I guess what I'm trying to say is I somewhat agree with FirstAscent in that the rules enforced seem subjective, even if it's all NAP. I've always just considered it a guideline. |
|
|
|
The reality of your joke of a system is this:
1. Everyone follows their own made up rules.
2. Those who can afford it, arbitrarily, and at their own whims, enforce their own made up rules with money and guns.
That sounds exactly like a republic, except item #1 would be "someone else's made up rules". The Ancaps seem to be proposing we lower that arbitrary barrier in #2 to include all people, and assuming that people who waste their money on irrational rules will become poorer and lose influence. Correct? Incorrect. If you change #1, then we're no longer discussing what I said, are we? As for #2, your sentence regarding it is manipulative and presumptuous. I guess not? It is no longer discussing Ancap, it is discussing the republic. I'm applying the same simplistic description to both systems, since analyzing them any way other than by comparison is pointless. Indeed it is presumptive, that's why I asked for an Ancap to confirm that presumption. I'm sorry if that came across as a question directed at you, as I am very familiar with your thoughts on the topic. I feel like I just walked into a room where people are fighting and got a chair broken over my head. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
