Libertarian ideals allow for the further progression of social morality through the natural selection of laws, in a preferably competitive political environment. It's inherently relativist.

 


This information doesn't surprise me at all.  It just goes to show how willing people are to gobble up anything, no matter how far-fetched, illogical, ridiculous, or just flat out wrong, if it confirms their worldview.  Fox News has made a fortune operating on this principle.

(And as a second aside, I finally just started reading Atlas Shrugged since I figured I should, and politics and ideologies aside, I think it's just a darn good book.)

2. So you want a system where people who make money by working for a physical employer can be taxed while people who make money off of money (eg. speculators) can avoid taxes untraceably?

Freedom of speech is something most people, at least in this country, favor. But strong privacy will also reduce the power of government in less obviously desirable ways. Activities that occur entirely in cyberspace will be invisible to outsiders – including ones working for the Federal government. It is hard to tax or regulate things you cannot see.

If I earn money selling services in cyberspace and spend it buying goods in realspace, the government can tax my spending. If I earn money selling goods in realspace and spend it buying services in cyberspace, they can tax my income. But if I earn money in cyberspace and spend it in cyberspace they cannot observe either income or expenditure and so will have nothing to tax.

Similarly for regulation. I am, currently, a law professor but not a member of the State Bar of California, making it illegal for me to sell certain sorts of legal services in California. Suppose I wanted to do so anyway. If I do it as David D. Friedman I am likely to get in trouble. But if I do it as Legal Eagle Online, taking care to keep the true name – the real-world identity – of Legal Eagle a secret, there is not much the State Bar can do about it.

In order to sell my legal services I have to persuade someone to buy them. I cannot do that by pointing potential customers to my books and articles because they were all published under my own name. What I can do is to start by giving advice for free and then, when the recipients find that the advice is good – perhaps by checking it against the advice of their current lawyers – raise my price. Thus over time I establish an online reputation for an online identity guaranteed by my digital signature.

Legal advice is one example; the argument is a general one. Once strong privacy is well established, governmental regulation of information services can no longer be enforced. Governments may still attempt to maintain the quality of professional services by certifying professionals – providing information as to who they believe is competent. But it will no longer be possible to force customers to act on that information – to legally forbid them from using uncertified providers, as they currently are legally forbidden to use unlicensed doctors or lawyers who have not passed the Bar.

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.

Umm, no offence but those SUCK!! Associating anarchists with btc only appiles to a small antisocial group. That by no means says "we're main stream". Plus they are too big. If you want to appile to the main stream then use something that is conservitive or understated. Just my two cents.

p.s. You know if those people did that to my property I would shot them dead. Its legal in Texas to use deadly force to protect ones property.

Why do people use C2C exchanges at all?

a little bit, maybe. but microsoft can control any windows computer.
im not saying they do it, but they can.

You can argue in favor of Zyklon-B for controlling Semite populations.. . .lots of science in that too, but not likely to impress hippie chicks.
*Personal experience* using science to show why astrology is bogus does NOT get one laid (with hippie chicks)

You are one scary 17 year old.

Protip: All the hot chicks are hippies, you might want to tone it down on the hard core capitalist ;P

Except for one minor problem.  Energy is not free and unlimited for us with our current technologies.  If we had limitless power, sure, absolutely.  Time of scarcity is over.

Until then, you are simply wrong.

Surely you are being sarcastic because you cannot possibly be serious. The "new guy" is bought and paid for by the same people who controlled the "old guy".

Here's an entertaining article that further illustrates this:

Politics is a Scam - Why I Will Never Vote Again - by James Altucher
http://www.jamesaltucher.com/2011/06/politics-is-a-scam-why-i-will-never-vote-again/

THEY made a monopoly? How do you make a monopoly by fining the companies who broke the law, put those responsible behind bars and tell everyone to follow the rules? That's how we handle oligopolies where I come from. How do you do it? Companies can still continue to operate, just within the rules.
Perhaps you just have a crappy government that needs to be replaced? Start campaigning.

   The difficulties facing private cartels are nicely stated in Rockefeller's description, cited by McGee, of an unsuccessful
   attempt (in 1872) to control the production of crude oil and to drive up its price:

                     . . . the high price for the crude oil resulted, as it had always done before and will always do so long as oil
                     comes out of the ground, in increasing the production, and they got too much oil. We could not find a market
                     for it.

                     ... of course, any who were not in this association were undertaking to produce all they possibly could; and as to
                     those who were in the association, many of them men of honor and high standing, the temptation was very great
                     to get a little more oil than they had promised their associates or us would come. It seemed very difficult to
                     prevent the oil coming at that price ....

   Rockefeller's prediction was overly pessimistic. Today, although oil still comes out of the ground, federal and state
   governments have succeeded where the oil producers of 1872 failed. Through federal oil import quotas and state
   restrictions on production, they keep the price of oil high and the production low. Progress.

   It is widely believed that railroads in the late nineteenth century wielded almost unlimited monopoly power. Actually,
   as Kolko shows, long distance transportation was highly competitive, freight rates were declining, and the number of
   railroads was increasing until after the turn of the century. One line might have a monopoly for short distances along
   its route, but a shipper operating between two major cities had a choice of many alternative routes—twenty existed
   between St. Louis and Atlanta, for instance. Railroad rebates, frequently cited as evidence of monopoly, were actually
   the opposite; they were discounts that major shippers were able to get from one railroad by threatening to ship via a
   competitor.

   Rail executives often got together to try to fix rates, but most of these conspiracies broke down, often in a few months,
   for the reasons Rockefeller cites in his analysis of the attempt to control crude oil production. Either the parties to the
   agreement surreptitiously cut rates (often by misclassifying freight or by offering secret rebates) in order to steal
   customers from each other, or some outside railroad took advantage of the high rates and moved in. J. P. Morgan
   committed his enormous resources of money and reputation to cartelizing the industry, but he met with almost
   unmitigated failure. In the beginning of 1889, for example, he formed the Interstate Commerce Railway Association to
   control rates among the western railroads. By March a rate war was going, and by June the situation was back to where
   it had been before he intervened.

   By this time a new factor was entering the situation. In 1887, the Interstate Commerce Commission was created by the
   federal government with (contrary to most history books) the support of much of the railroad industry. The ICC's
   original powers were limited; Morgan attempted to use it to help enforce the 1889 agreement, but without success.

   During the next 31 years its powers were steadily increased, first in the direction of allowing it to prohibit rebates
   (which, Kolko estimates, were costing the railroads 10 percent of their gross income) and finally by giving it the power
   to set rates.

   The people with the greatest interest in what the ICC did were the people in the rail industry. The result was that they
   dominated it, and it rapidly became an instrument for achieving the monopoly prices that they had been unable to get
   on the free market. The pattern was clear as early as 1889, when Aldace Walker, one of the original appointees to the
   ICC, resigned to become head of Morgan's Interstate Commerce Railway Association. He ended up as chairman of the
   board of the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe. The ICC has served the railroads as a cartelizing agent up to the present
   day; in addition, it has expanded its authority to cover other forms of transportation and to prevent them, where
   possible, from undercutting the railroads.

No offense, but you're stupid.