 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 »
|
|
The drawing is good, the writing is painfully dull.
Wont look again.
|
|
|
|
Thx for the link.  Vegetta, many people have told you, i will repeat: Listen to free advice. Even if you think she wanted to belittle you (i didnt get that impression), to most people it seems obvious that she did give valuable insight into a business YOU want to enter. Dont turn it away out of spite. LISTEN. |
|
|
|
Can bitcoin fill the void in a bank run?
No. It cant do nothing to prevent the difficulties of a bank run while it is happening. Things went wrong long before that. |
|
|
|
...Regardless..my bitcoin wallet/instance is on a detached external portable 1TB HD fully encrypted and tucked away in a fire proof box in my bedroom closet. I just use blockexplorer to keep track of my balances.
AFIK, fire-proof boxes are designed to keep paper from bruning, not protecting electronic media. A few hours in a fire would probably fade any data stored in a fire safe. He is right, the temperatures will be way to high for a HD to survive. The data might be recoverable (i even think it would be), but it would be very expensive. It sure wont work when plugged back in. |
|
|
|
Say bye-bye to this method as soon as wallets are encrypted on disk.
It still works if you can decrypt the archive (or the entire disk) before doing the search. So mount the encrypted volume, then do the search. |
|
|
|
No, I probably couldn't sue them. Small claims courts are terrible and overpriced. Some government we have, eh? Also, there's plent of open-source hardware out there (mesh-networking) and desire to sustain this lovely place indefinitely without government.
YOUR government. I could sue and wouldnt have much trouble doing it. (Even going to bed, I just had to bite. ) I regard the USA as somewhat of a failing state. Both in terms of it overreaching: see your prison system/criminal law, patriot act, FISA court, etc, and it underachieving/failing at the basic tasks of a modern government: see affordable healthcare, equal access to education, a functioning legal system (some overreaching there too, e.g. frivolous lawsuits, but your lower courts are atrocious, everybody tries to get into federal courts, just because some of them actually CAN judicate). No wonder you are unhappy, your government is much more intrusive than necessary without delivering the results that could legitimize it. I look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow. I mostly want one question answered: How do you envision the rise of an anarchist (whatever you would call it) society, without somebody immediately (or rather during the "change") trying to usurp authority. How would you envision the continued absence of force/violence to be stable? |
|
|
|
Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.
Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in.  (you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift) I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better. The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse. I choose modern society. It is (talking about western europe here) quite a nice place. Little suffering, a lot of freedom. Taxes do not limit me nearly as much as starvation or illness (or violence without a lawful and collective recourse). If you want to go back in time, be my guest. Just do not take me with you on the trip. Id also like to repeat myself, because you chose to skip over it: "An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy." "Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though." I find that point quite important. In theory, well-intended anarchism (vernor-vinge like, you might like his books, btw, they are very good) is a very nice ideal (i like to read about it), but it will never work in practice. The end result is sure to be rather messy and unpleasant. You say this with no actual practice. You just prefer to stay with the status-quo: violence. Do not mistake force for violence. The (threat of) force is a must. Application of force (violence) will and has to occur, I dont deny that any state relies on it. I approve of it. So yes, I approve of this violence, as you define it (within the confines i talked about: purpose, legitimacy, democratic control). But I dont think the absence of violence is actually possible. An actual anarchy... much much more violence (because it would become a tyranny very fast, probably multiple regional/local tyrannies) But, you dont think that would happen, I assume. You think it CAN work? Without somebody trying to take advantage of the lack of established authority? I find that very hard to imagine. (again: i can plug Vernor Vinge, you will like his books and they are excellent even if I do not describe to anarchy/hardcore-libertarianism). Off to bed, my regards and have a nice day. |
|
|
|
|
weird double post, ignore
|
|
|
|
A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) than ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one)
I think you need to look around. We are on a nearly unregulated body (the internet) yet we have tons of people producing. We have excellent efficiency when it comes to delegating different types of labor. I just hired several people to help construct my website and podcast. I can imagine it being just as complex and advance. The desire for technology and stuff in general will always exist and generally there will always be enough incentive for it to be met. In fact, the incentive is no greater than it is with no restrictions. You could hire those people so easily (and rely on their services) because - if they fail to honor their contract - you can SUE THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. You are assuming the internet is anarchistic, just because it is on the technical side? The whole social background - which you ignore or take for granted, either one - IS essential even on the internet. ISPs and other services rely on the backing of law. I am not denying the desire for advancement, just the ability of high productivity and division of labor in an anarchistic society. |
|
|
|
Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.
Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in. (you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift) I think you need to take a look at how many people are suffering today because of the state. What we have tried through force is absolutely no better. The fact is that there will always be suffering and statism only makes it worse. I choose modern society. It is (talking about western europe here) quite a nice place. Little suffering, a lot of freedom. Taxes do not limit me nearly as much as starvation or illness (or violence without a lawful and "collective" recourse). If you want to go back in time, be my guest. Just do not take me with you on the trip. Id also like to repeat myself, because you chose to skip over it: "An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy." "Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though." I find that point quite important. In theory, well-intended anarchism (vernor-vinge like, you might like his books, btw, they are very good) is a very nice ideal (i like to read about it), but it will never work in practice. The end result is sure to be rather messy and unpleasant. |
|
|
|
Charities did a wonderful job of enabling us to care for each other before they were crippled by the state.
Yeah, because there were so few people starving and suffering from (treatable) illness in the (not so recent) past. Charities did a wonderful job in the past; nobody suffered. The rich were helping the poor survive before the modern welfare-state stepped in. (you may keep the sarcasm, it was a charitable gift) |
|
|
|
No, I am either entitled to every damn thing I produce or I will not produce at all! I will not compromise! ...and it is not a false black-and-white dichotomy! As their is life and death, there is freedom and slavery!
Who is to define a legitimate purpose? Again, the whims and desires of the few but certainly not all! ...and the only well-defined democratic process that exists is voluntary individual trade! Everything else leaves an enslaved minority.
You are preaching anarchism, which I find an absurd concept. An anarchistic society has never existed on earth. (not even on Iceland, as some people claim) There is a good reason for that. You can have anarchy only for a very short moment of time, until some people become more powerful/influential than their fellows. --> Enter tyranny or (if you are lucky) an oligarchy. Modern democracy is the least of evils (at least its somewhat stable and better than the other stable alternatives), we might yet improve it on some, though. As an aside: A society that you envision could not be as complex (in terms of division of labor) as ours. It would necessarily be less technologically advanced. Another trade-off that I am not willing to make. (although the less important one) |
|
|
|
|
You are
1.) changing the premise of the discussion (i did NOT want to argue individualism vs collectivism)
2.) painting a false black-white dichotomy
But for the sake of putting it out there:
You are entitled to yourself and most of the fruits of your labor. You are NOT entitled to all of it without restrictions. But very important: It should NOT be taken by "whims" and "desires". There needs to be a legitimate purpose and (more importantly - if only because ensuring the first restriction relies on the latter) a well-defined democratic process to decide how far to take this.
If you are an anarchist, we will just have to disagree on that.
|
|
|
|
There is no collective.
There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do. A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice. And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while. You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want. There's a difference between a collective by which all its components voluntarily choose to work together and one constructed by slavery and coercion. It seems most "collectivists" advocate collaboration by force and theft. Neither I nor the ~~~~~ guy ever implied anything about force. Actually, we both expressed our disdain for the extreme of both sides. I am no fascist or communist (both being collectivist in the extreme and forceful way). Besides, I didnt want to argue collectivism vs individualism. I just wanted to point out that flat out denying the existance of collectives was plain strange/false. |
|
|
|
There is no collective.
There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do. A group of people never decide. Only an individual is capable of choice. And when several individuals decide on a common course ... they form a collective for a while. You can semantically narrow down the word collective until it never applies, yes ... but the social reality remains that humans do collaborate and sometimes even altruistically. Which is a good thing. Call those collaborations whatever you want. |
|
|
|
There is no collective.
There is when a group of people decide they share a common interest and want to work together to achieve it, which they quite often do. |
|
|
|
She was forced to pay into those for most of her life. Of course she claimed them.ญญ
According to her, she should have never needed them. Really, her life was a mess. She was as irrational as humans come, especially regarding her private life. Irony. |
|
|
|
I reject them both. Balance between the individual and the collective is key, neither is anything without the other. They are in fact ultimately, two sides of the same coin. All extremists are basically egomaniacs, I can't stand the fuckers.
word |
|
|
|
|
