Do you have any pictures of the floor plan? What's the layout? Thanks.

290 BTC per rig or make an offer.

PSU: Rosewill 1000W 80+ Bronze

Any takers?

Best offers?

I'm looking to sell 2 bitcoin rigs together or separately. They are each stable at about 1550 Mhash/s (Total 3100 Mhash/s). They can go faster. I haven't tweaked them much. Asking 300 BTC or equivalent USD per rig. Please include shipping from zip code 84321 when bidding.

I accept DWOLLA (ID #: 812-489-3211). My bitcoin address is in the signature line.

**Each** rig contains the following:

5 x 5830 Sapphire
5 x Riser cards (will throw in extra 2)
1 x Sempron
1 x Rosewill PSU (80+% efficient)
1 x 1GB RAM
1 x 2GB+ Linuxcoin USB stick.

All original product boxes, manuals, CD's and accessories are available.

EDIT: One rig has has only 4 HD5830's. I sold one. Hashrate is less (-310 Mhash/s). Prices subject to change.

   
   

Letting them die? Was I the one that caused their death? If someone dies in Timbuktu, and I had the cure, am I responsible for their death? Where are you going with this?


I'm only interested in the version of coercion which involves threats of injury. Me having more money, more insurance, more health care, more assets, more intelligence, more cures, and more things in general, does not equate to threat nor effectuate coercion.


You don't get it do you?; and don't assume that you can equate my example to what I'd do in any particular situation. I do care. I would help. I do have values, morals, scruples, sympathy, empathy, compassion and charity regarding the plight of others.

However, I have zero tolerance for a government which tries to force the above. There is no such thing as forced compassion, forced empathy, or forced charity, to name a few. Forcing the aforementioned is the antithesis of the meaning of those concepts. Government forcing those sorts of things destroys the very nature and purpose of what it means to have those characteristics.

I was demonstrating that force of expropriation is not justified. Nothing more, nothing less. Get a clue.

Why don't we all be honest about it? Why should any industry be forced to assist another person if they aren't under any contractual obligation (uncoerced consent) to do so? Why should doctors be forced to admit or assist any patient if they don't want to? Why should their salaries be regulated? Why should any "public" universities or colleges limit graduates in the medical industry? Why should the industry control the number of doctors at all? Why should government regulate pharmaceutical costs? Why should government be involved in the medical industry, including education in the first place, except beyond provable physical injury?

Additionally, if you don't like your insurance carrier (any kind mind you), get another one, or go without. If you don't like it, compete or get out of the way. If there was a cure for every ailment, including death and pain, and I was the only person in the world who had it, and I charged a billion currency units, tough nuggies. You can't force me to give it to you. That would be theft and a violation of my personal liberties (aka slavery).

I won't label the above socialist as that word has been bastardized one to many times, but it comes awful close. Nevertheless I'll refrain. Suffice it to say, I will call it a form of slavery.

Life was never fair, and never will be. Trying to force it to be fair is far worse. Get over yourself. Cry me a river.

Perhaps I shouldn't use any -ism words at all as they do in fact have many different interpretations by many people. However and notwithstanding that, if your modus operandi is to force a man to relinquish his property for a purpose other than self-defense (or for restitution), you would be stealing, injuring or enslaving. Frederic Bastiat described this as the difference between legal plunder and extralegal plunder.

Legal plunder was where you could legislate laws or statutes which could expropriate another man's property for purposes other than lawful defense. Examples of this would be: government health care, welfare programs, unemployment insurance etc.

Extralegal plunder was more obvious, but neverthess equivalent in its effect. These were things like stealing, murdering, raping, kidnapping, etc.

I'll leave you with one of his quotes as that would be very apropos to this thread, considering the fact it actually began with someone paraphrasing him.

"Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common force cannot rationally have any other end, or any other mission, than that of the isolated forces for which it is substituted. Thus, as the force of an individual cannot lawfully touch the person, the liberty, or the property of another individual—for the same reason, the common force cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, the liberty, or the property of individuals or of classes.

For this perversion of force would be, in one case as in the other, in contradiction to our premises. For who will dare to say that force has been given to us, not to defend our rights, but to annihilate the equal rights of our brethren? And if this be not true of every individual force, acting independently, how can it be true of the collective force, which is only the organized union of isolated forces?

Nothing, therefore, can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense; it is the substitution of collective for individual forces, for the purpose of acting in the sphere in which they have a right to act, of doing what they have a right to do, to secure persons, liberties, and properties, and to maintain each in its right, so as to cause justice to reign over all."

I'm, in fact, already a card-carrying member. I've got bigger fish to fry than water fluoridation, but nevertheless would prefer that my water be pure H20, in addition to the water plant being privately owned. But you know, I can only hope.

The "American worker" owns most of his production. He pays a portion of that product in taxes and concedes to the state certain specific regulations, which by defintion, no longer makes them the sole owners of their own property. If someone can take from you a portion of your property or dictates to you the means of production, or manipulates and guides you into specific uses thereof, your property becomes part-owned by the state (or third party).

That sort of dicta is socialist by it's very nature. Every government has varying degrees of socialism implemented if volunteerism is diminshed in any way. The US is no different in that respect. It just may be more "free" and less "socialist" than other states in other countries.

I just responded to the comments as written. What in there constituted cognitive dissonance? I thought I was fairly consistent, unless the commenter was just joking, in which case. Ha Ha, oh so funny? Moving on I guess.

Really? Where do you live? Out in the middle in the ocean on your own island? You apparently don't know the definition of socialism. And the fact you use state, implies you believe someone has greater authority than you to tell you what to do. Ever paid taxes? I could go on and on, but I'm sure you're just being sarcastic so I'll avoid wasting your time and mine.

Enjoy your "slavery" while you can, it will get worse if you let if fester.

A socialist does both of those but for different reasons. Mandating and forcing are synonymous with initiating aggression, so neither option is nice.


Glad to see you're catching on. However, Reagan granting amnesty to immigrants is a violation of the U.S. Constitution, so while it may not be socialist per se, it was a violation of his oath of office. He lives in the Executive branch of government not the Legislative (read Article 1 Sec. 8 Clause 3). My personal opinion is that nobody should grant access to other people's property if it isn't theirs. Tragedy of the commons issue again.


Why should anybody trust a political science professor? Most of them are supported by the state. That would be called legal plunder. Nothing conspiratorial really, just your regular vanilla theft disguised as legal "higher education". None of them are going to risk their jobs, pensions, or tenure to tell the truth. No need to consult a DJ, just follow the proverbial bread crumbs. It's a who dunnit mystery a 13 yr old could follow.


Perhaps there is no honor among thieves?

I hope you're kidding. What hasn't both of them done, in almost every case, that didn't happen to be Socialist?

Every policy and almost every word coming out of both of their mouths has been Socialist, if not Fascist. Give them 5 minutes at the podium and you can see that one.

Either Hawker likes being a slave, or he is somehow benefitted by society giving him privileges (goods or services) which he acquired with little or any effort. If on the other hand his effort starts to exceed the benefits received, I'll bet he'd start complaining, or find a way to use the law to even the score (voting/lobbying).

"As soon as the injured classes have recovered their political rights, their first thought is not to abolish plunder (this would suppose them to possess enlightenment, which they cannot have), but to organize against the other classes, and to their own detriment, a system of reprisals—as if it was necessary, before the reign of justice arrives, that all should undergo a cruel retribution—some for their iniquity and some for their ignorance.

It would be impossible, therefore, to introduce into society a greater change and a greater evil than this—the conversion of the law into an instrument of plunder." -- Frederic Bastiat.

You would be correct. There is no perfect justice or government because there are no perfect people. This is true, except to say that I would like to think that competition amongst competing private security firms might do a better job than those with monopoly-on-force contracts because they must meet the needs of those with whom they contract or else lose business.

Forced monopolies don't have to compete and so rarely consider improving. I suppose mob justice might arise, but even those organizations risk constant push-back by individuals and other security firms who consider such tactics unjust. Maybe it will all dissolve into a big civil war. Hard to say. We'll never know unless we try. Just a thought.

I would like to believe my NAP fantasy has at least a sporting chance of greater justice and personal liberty, than the established force monopoly of government, which has already miserably failed in so many ways.

Another quote from Lysander Spooner to slake your insatiable "stately" beast:

"In truth, in the case of individuals, their actual voting is not to be taken as proof of
consent, even for the time being. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, without
his consent having even been asked, a man finds himself environed by a government
that he cannot resist; a government that forces him to pay money, render service, and
forego the exercise of many of his natural rights, under peril of weighty punishments.

He sees, too, that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use of the ballot. He
sees further, that, if he will but use the ballot himself, he has some chance of relieving
himself from this tyranny of others, by subjecting them to his own. In short, he finds
himself, without his consent, so situated that, if he use the ballot, he may become a
master; if he does not use it, he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative
than these two.

In self-defense, he attempts the former. His case is analogous to that of a man who has
been forced into battle, where he must either kill others, or be killed himself. Because,
to save his own life in battle, a man attempts to take the lives of his opponents, it is not
to be inferred that the battle is one of his own choosing.

Neither in contests with the ballot—which is a mere substitute for a bullet—because, as
his only chance of self-preservation, a man uses a ballot, is it to be inferred that the
contest is one into which he voluntarily entered; that he voluntarily set up all his own
natural rights, as a stake against those of others, to be lost or won by the mere power of
numbers. On the contrary, it is to be considered that, in an exigency into which he had
been forced by others, and in which no other means of self-defense offered, he, as a
matter of necessity, used the only one that was left to him."

It isn't my goal, just a logical outcome. Just getting cute. Nothing personal.

Those who vote in opposition to the theory of non-initiation of force (NAP) are resorting to violence. Being outvoted in my case means that society, via the ruling class, is voting to use violence against me. Who resorted to violence first? Should I not be able to defend myself in the same manner (violence for violence)?

See how the vote does nothing to protect the weak from the strong, or the minority from the majority when preventing violence? A vote seems so trivially superficial and meaningless in the end -to say nothing of it's non-binding nature- when it comes to me protecting what's mine.

You're smarter than this Hawker. You know it, and I know you know it. Convert. Admit you're wrong, it doesn't hurt that bad. Trust me, I had to do it, it was pretty refreshing oddly enough. Nobody's perfect. I promise to not even say I told you so. We're all pseudo-anonymous here anyway.

I kinda figured you'd say that. I suppose if society voted that all ugly people be put to death, we'd justify that one too, or slavery, or old age, or abortion, or eminent domain, or.... I could go on if you like.

You should draw the line at the initiation of force, otherwise government can (and will) grow without bounds. Look what we have now. It's a product of crossing the line on what the definition of property is. If you take other people's property for convenience sake, you will always be violated, ad infinitum.

Given the arbitrariness of involuntary governing practices, similar to what you suggest, ultimately marches us in the direction of tyrannical totalitarianism. It may not be in your lifetime, but it will eventually happen if we don't stand up and assert our rights. Most people only care about themselves and the here and now, unconcerned about what kind of future they will leave their children.

Will we ever learn from our past? I wonder sometimes.