98% humans are selfish individuals.. the best system is the one that rewards the selfish desires of the individual... Do yourself and the internet a favor: read more, learn more, think more, and talk less. Just watched the RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilization you referred! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7gA nice video where author describes the humans are basically empathetic species! But what difference does this make! this world is also filled with ISIS like people who show no empathy! then the argument would be ISIS just represents less than 1 percent of the population and the rest of them are empathetic individuals! and when we bring statistics into argument it goes back again to the same story of SELFISHNESS VS ALTRUISM! the real solution to this argument would be to cite scientific studies which found out if majority of humans are selfish individuals or altruistic!Does it really matter? Shouldn't we, as individuals and civilizations as a whole, aspire to be the best that we can be? The Vedic texts, the mighty Greek philosophers, the Magna Carta, the Leviathan, The Two Treatises of Government, The Age of Enlightenment - all these are the byproducts of humanity's attempt for material and spiritual advancement. Our values and morality have grown throughout the ages since the dawn of history. Imagine, less than a century ago women still can't vote in the United States. Less than two centuries ago, the law accepts that some humans are inferior to others. Less than four centuries ago, the Church gave their blessing for the genocide of non-caucasoids. Less than six centuries ago, the modern concept of courtship and love still hadn't emerged. The right thing is never the easiest to do. If it was, most of us here won't be gambling, smoking and womanizing our lives away. |
|
|
|
Respectfully, but isn't this is just more labels to reconcile the gap between limited government and total anarchy, and an attempt to pigeonhole people like Ron Paul?
...
Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal?
Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology?
I have no problem with describing Ron Paul as a libertarian. If you have a complex ideology fine, what I don't like is when people join a discussion and say: "I'm not part of any ideology I have my own views". Yes you have your own views but that doesn't make them unique. They are still part of ideology, it doesn't matter how complex it is. I have yet to see a opinion or a political view in this thread, that we cannot place in a ideology. Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian. Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)? Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.
The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate. Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties. You should not let yourself be boxed by labels. The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team. How would you reconcile this theory in comparing the pro-market, limited government American right wing and Europe's populist, nationalist and pro social welfare right wing?
It can't work both ways, right?
The difference is still the tradition of social democracy in Europe. The right wing in Europe wants to keep the welfare state but they also want lower taxes. It would be political suicide for any party in Europe to try to end the welfare state. You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude. The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum. If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies? Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States? Lincoln's Homestead Act. Little House on the Prairie, anyone? The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today. And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory. Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers. |
|
|
|
Actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that my "ideas and opinions" are not constrained within specific categories determine by a only few of variables, reminiscent of the personality or sex quizzes found in Cleo or Cosmo.
And just for the record, it is naive, not to mention dangerous, to think that all libertarians share the same views concerning taxation.
Do you think David Nolan, the founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party, is a social liberal (?), considering he believes that not all taxes are deleterious, and is actually in favor of land tax?
What about the geolibertarian community as a whole, which believe that all natural resources should be taxed? Are they not libertarians?
Let's not forget the green libertarians, whose wants corporations to be taxed based on their impact to the ecosystem - consumption of natural resources, pollution, usage of public utilities, etc.
Even Ron Paul, flagbearer of the anti-taxation paleolibertarian movement and mouthpiece of Lew Rockwell, is supportive of excise, consumption and national sales taxes.
Not all libertarians have the same view on taxation that is true. But thats because within the libertarian movement there is several underlying political philosophies. Most people in the movement (including the people you just mentioned) I would label "minarchists" because they want limited government. Another group of the movement are the "anarchists" they want no government at all. It's important to know the difference between anarchists and minarchists since they want completely different things. Even though both groups call themselves "libertarians" they are based on different political philosophies. I think it's dangerous not to use labels when you describe peoples views. Just look at Rand Paul, he says he's a libertarian but in reality he's more of a conservative. Labels are for census takers and political bodies. There exists no hard lines in the sand, only a wildly diverging and fluid spectrum.
Take a look at a variation of the Vosem Chart below, derived from the Pournelle chart.
Yes of course charts are always going to be limited but that doesn't mean we cannot identify which ideologies our views fit in. Instead of looking through charts you should study the ideas and opinions of these politicians and see where they fit in. Most of the time politicians want you to believe they are not part of "left" and "right" so they can get more votes. Respectfully, but isn't this is just more labels to reconcile the gap between limited government and total anarchy, and an attempt to pigeonhole people like Ron Paul? Some constitutionalist libertarians have tried to associate Paul with minarchism as a method to explain away some of his more statist positions. Keep in mind, he has never professed to be one. Keep in mind also that Murray Rothbard, the founder of U.S. paleolibertarianism movement that Paul is influenced by, is what some would label to be an anarcho capitalist. In addition, many senior libertarians frown upon the concept entirely. Per Bylund, an Associated Scholar with the Mises Institute, once wrote that "minarchist libertarians are nothing but gutless wimps; they are statist socialists with a fetish for smaller government." So how would should we accurately label Ron Paul? Considering he is a devout Christian, I would say he believes in the divine authority of governments. Also, since Paul is in favor of (just of the top of my head) legislating morality (pro-life, DOMA, DADT, etc.) and military adventurism (voted for AUMF), can we surmise that he has conservative/right wing tendencies? Dick Morris once said that Paul's non-interventionalist foreign policy is neoliberalist. To take that a little bit further, his support of legalizing drugs screams of liberalism. Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal? Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology? As soon as you begin to realize the complex spectrum of beliefs that we could potentially inhabit, consider that the chart are also limited, only capturing a facet of our thinking.
And then, compared the ideologies of political parties from different geographic regions. For instance, the leftist ideology as defined in American politics inhabits a remarkably similar spectrum as those of center-right Europe.
It's not surprising that what Americans believe are "leftist" ideas are considered "center-right" in Europe. That's because the US has a history of limited government and Europe have a history of social democracy. How would you reconcile this theory in comparing the pro-market, limited government American right wing and Europe's populist, nationalist and pro social welfare right wing? It can't work both ways, right? |
|
|
|
You can try, but I'd like to think most of us have beliefs, opinions and values that transcend conveniently boxed labels.
Heck, even dogmatic religious fundamentalists are hard to pin down ideologically.
It's naive to think that you somehow have ideas and opinions that are not covered by the ideology spectrum. I bet you have a opinion on taxation. Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian. It is however possible to have ideas that mixes several ideologies. Thats why we have mixes like social liberalism. Actually, it is perfectly logical to assume that my "ideas and opinions" are not constrained within specific categories determine by a only few of variables, reminiscent of the personality or sex quizzes found in Cleo or Cosmo. And just for the record, it is naive, not to mention dangerous, to think that all libertarians share the same views concerning taxation. Do you think David Nolan, the founder of the U.S. Libertarian Party, is a social liberal (?), considering he believes that not all taxes are deleterious, and is actually in favor of land tax? What about the geolibertarian community as a whole, which believe that all natural resources should be taxed? Are they not libertarians? Let's not forget the green libertarians, whose wants corporations to be taxed based on their impact to the ecosystem - consumption of natural resources, pollution, usage of public utilities, etc. Even Ron Paul, flagbearer of the anti-taxation paleolibertarian movement and mouthpiece of Lew Rockwell, is supportive of excise, consumption and national sales taxes. Labels are for census takers and political bodies. There exists no hard lines in the sand, only a wildly diverging and fluid spectrum. Take a look at a variation of the Vosem Chart below, derived from the Pournelle chart. As soon as you begin to realize the complex spectrum of beliefs that we could potentially inhabit, consider that the chart are also limited, only capturing a facet of our thinking. And then, compared the ideologies of political parties from different geographic regions. For instance, the leftist ideology as defined in American politics inhabits a remarkably similar spectrum as those of center-right Europe.  |
|
|
|
Hong Kong has become the center of mass protests and demonstrations aimed at bringing the current communist state to its knees. Thousands have lined the streets in a final attempt to defeat the government. However, Bitcoin has also become a victim to these clashes, as many have reported that it has also suffered in the wake of these events. Bitcoin has long been a favorite source of investment for many Asian investors and entrepreneurs. With over 60% of all bitcoins traded as part of daily volume originating from Chinese and Japanese investors, a sudden shift in investor trading results in a massive shockwave being sent throughout the Bitcoin markets. Source : http://www.coinssource.com/hong-kong-protests-causing-btc-flash-crash/In the spirit of making random associations and inductive fallacies, how certain are we that Bitcoin's price drop is not caused by a superflare originating from a star in the Canum Venaticorum system?  |
|
|
|
Evolve to a higher intellectual being, to see a human as a human without prejudice, understand the map is not the territory, the word is not the thing and live in peace.
Someone in a 'mental state of water' has no ideology. One exist as human that has natural laws and do no harm to others.
Actually it doesn't matter if a person has "a mental state of water" the person probably still have views and opinions. If the person has views and opinions we can place him/her in a ideology.You can try, but I'd like to think most of us have beliefs, opinions and values that transcend conveniently boxed labels. Heck, even dogmatic religious fundamentalists are hard to pin down ideologically. |
|
|
|
National debt is not the same as personal debt. In fact, national debt is a very very good thing. All of those debts that add up to 17 trillion dollars have hard-set timetables for completion, no, China cannot "call it in" and ask for all of their money back.
National debt is a good thing because it means that other countries are happy to loan to the United States, and they are confident that they will get their investment back and more. Confidence is the driver of economies in a virtuous cycle, so as long as other countries keep loaning money to the United States, the US economy will be healthy. The day the US stops borrowing money is the day that the economy crashes worse than ever before.
 Oh my, what a bold and explosive statement you have there. National debts come into existence when governments spend more than what they earn. These deficits are funded by direct loans from financial institutions, national trusts, bonds, LGs and other monetary instruments. These loans have to be paid back, with interests, usually through tax increases, draconian spending cuts or, more loans. National debt is never a good thing, especially one caused by chronic budget deficits, because it usually screams of incompetence, at the very least. |
|
|
|
Is economic protectionism bad policy in general?
Do we gain more by sending jobs to other countries where the labour is cheaper?
Looking back over the past 15 years of globalization, has the US gained from outsourcing or in retrospect would have it been better to try to keep those jobs at home?
Economic protectionism is alive and well. In fact, I would say it's rampant. However, unlike poor Asian or South American countries, first world nations are more circumspect and discreet in the protectionist approach. For instance, in the face of the mighty Brazilian sugar barons, the United States enforces a strict 28% import limit of sugar, retail pricing controls, fertilizer discounts and other indirect support mechanisms (fuel subsidy, preferential freight rates, etc.). If the Brazilian Congress even dreams about enacting anything similar for some other agricultural product, you can be assured that the WTO will be swimming in war paint before their plane lands in Brasilia. |
|
|
|
On a separate note: I don't know if you've been following the news, but the House of Representatives (US) has just voted in favor 333-92 for the Federal Reserve Transparency Act, aka Audit The Fed. I created a Government petition: http://wh.gov/iiFluIsn't this just more paleolibertarian drama, passed by the House to appease the baying wolves, with no realistic chance of ever passing the Senate? The proposed Federal Reserve Transparency Act is almost identical to 31 U.S. Code § 714.As far as I can tell, the major difference is the GAO will be tasked to conduct its own audit (on top of the current Congress-approved ones, conducted by independent third parties) and release the findings to every member of Congress. There is also a provision that allows GAO to provide full report of the Feds foreign dealings to members of Congress (currently, those data are limited to specific Senate and House committee members, as well as members of the administration). |
|
|
|
When the Federal Reserve decides to up inflation from 2% to 3%, increasing the money supply by say $10bn USD, they don't actually turn on the printing presses or mint new coins. This kind of money exists only in electronic form - they don't need to go mine for gold, nor print paper money. This inflation is created "from nothing" (believe it or not).
The Fed has the power to simply add a number to a database record that resembles someones bank account.
With my colleague at eCash.io we've been scratching our heads - why don't we ever hear of a heist or hack, someone adding a few zero's to their bank accounts? Either it is kept well from the media, or it simply doesn't happen. But that's the hard part to understand. Whereas Bitcoin is cryptographically secured, and no single individual can "add some zero's" to magically change 1 BTc into 1000 BTC, central bank's electronic money systems are not cryptographically secured at all. They are literally just numbers in a database.
In principle, if you think Edward Snowden was a security risk to the USA, imagine the sysadmins working for the Fed, who have root access to alter numbers for bank accounts. Why do we hear nothing of these people? Who are they? Where do they live? Of course, if we knew where they lived, they'd be in great danger, like Satoshi Nakamoto.
* Most people can't imagine that money can be invented out of thin air, by simply altering some numbers in a cental bank's database;
* Most people don't understand that "inflation" means "to create money out of nothing" (again, changing some numbers in a database)
* When we read about "bailouts", e.g. General Motors receiving billions, this is, again, just changing numbers in a database. Nobody actually had to cough up this money, savings accounts were not involved, the money came from nothing
This is financial power in its purest form: the shareholders of the Federal Reserve, a private company, have the power to create money from nothing, simply by changing a record in a database. If the people would understand this, there would be a revolution. Many billion dollar bailouts were done through the act of changing a 0 into 12,000,000,000.
Central Banks, therefore, have an incentive to cloud this truth with smokescreens, obscure language "quantitative easing, tapering", not to mention 'no audits' for over 100 years (apparently 2014 will see one). But I can't figure out why we never hear of some Anonymous group succesfully hacking bank account records. Am I missing something here?
(i) There was a well-publicized attempt to hack the Feds last year and a British citizen was subsequently charged in court. (ii) The National Response Team protects the Feds' ~$2.8 trillion daily transactions. (iii) A quote by Paul Volcker, former Fed Chairman: " With the best staff in the world and all the computing power we could give them, there could never be any certainty about just the right level of the federal funds rate to keep the money supply on the right path and to regulate economic activity." |
|
|
|
A couple of weeks back someone on the Litecoindark thread insulted the avatar of @manelecrypto, some wannbe kid trying to be the next Iconic Expert using the icon of an East European singer. Per posts on the LTCD forum the singer's fans included some Romanian gypsies who decided to get even and crash the coin.
Total FUD but all it takes is a few thousand US dollars to manipulate and kill a new coin so maybe not. Sure enough LTCD had major dumps that didn't make sense and only started to come back this week after this one post says the gypsies backed off.
Now on the Craigscoin forum the same thing this time because Russia is occupying a part of Moldava which is a Romanian speaking country. The dev of Craigscoin is Russian. That coin just went through a giant post-ICO meltdown that makes no sense because the dev was actually doing what he said he would do, posting everyday and being basically professional. Everyone says the usual about whales eating and that kind of thing but the dirt-dive is pretty epic: more than for coins like $syscoin that really seem(ed) scammy.
I don't have time to dig though those forums for links but the stuff is there unless the mods de-FUDed the threads already.
What do people think? Just really wierd and kind of possible if they don't care about loosing a few thousand to prove a point. That's day's earning from a whorehouse by the highway over there so they wouldn't miss the cash really.
Absolutely. There are several active ethnic/national groups here that collaborates across the whole crypto process flow, right from coin creation to pools setup to exchange listing to pump groups and even, forum cheerleading. Never heard of a Romanian gypsy crypto clan though. But I have a positive impression of gypsies as a whole, courtesy of Kari Wuhrer from Thinner. |
|
|
|
You've stated some good points. However, I can't act against the rules created and aproven by both admins. This is where the community (which is affected the most) should express their opinions. If you or anyone else believes that this rule is, as Biomech said, "insane", I suggest PMing BadBear with a well reasoned and thought out message and he might remove this rule. Until then, my hands are tied.
I can't believe that we had to wait 2 months after the first decision for a staff member to come out and say this. All the concerns mentioned in the post you replied were addressed months ago. Obviously this decision was too strict and in many ways insane. I was highly suspicious about how staff members agreed to bringing this rule to use. Ends up it's only a couple of people that have total control of this forum's rules. Don't staff member like you have a voice in such discussions? Obviously the concerns of the community were systematically ignored this time, but it's scary to know that staff members also can't play a role in such decisions (and please correct me if I'm wrong with something). I do understand these concerns were adressed, but the only thing I can suggest you is to try and establish a direct dialog with BadBear via PM. The more people talk, the more likely they will reach some kind of agreement. Every staff member can give suggestions on various descisions, however, the final word goes to either one of the admins (and global mods in some cases). So far, both of the admins listen, address and take into account our opinions. Regarding this situation, I have no opinion (neutral). I'm not an alt miner, nor a trader and I tend to follow the bigger and more established alts so the fact these posts have been removed have no effect on me. That's why I'm suggesting to anyone who has a strong opinion about this situation to contact the admins. Mate, but there have indeed been dialogues between BadBear and probably a dozen members in this thread. Yet, all of our reasoning, concerns and opinions were just brushed aside. I wonder what PMs to BadBear could achieve beyond rehashing the same arguments. Everyone (possibly even BadBear, by now) knows this rule resolves a very small issue at the high cost of censoring useful information from reaching members. Trust the forum members to report posters who abuse posting privileges instead of punishing the entire subforum for a barely noticeable problem. BadBear, get rid of this rule. |
|
|
|
The frenzy has diminished, as illustrated by this chart of number of altcoin launches per month since Jan 2013:  (Data from DOACC https://github.com/DOACC)Thought there might be some broad interest. Cheers Graham [dynamic, interactive version on Minkiz home page http://minkiz.co (ninja launch)]I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I strongly believe we are in fact in the consolidation phase, which will inevitably be followed by an even more bullish growth. The market has matured, and the snake oils being peddled in the final quarter of 2013 and first quarter of 2014 had to be refreshed. The handful of groups behind the majority of the 'currencies' being released will be back, stronger than before, armed with new implementations, asset solutions, ICOs, distributions and more. |
|
|
|
...awaiting the explanation..  I don't think I can explain, it's a clash of ideologies. In that kind of opposition verbal arguments, which there's been no lack of recently, just don't work. There is a reason they made the "A picture is worth a thousand words" proverb, because sometimes you have to see it to believe. Why can't you explain? Basically the price of a commodity tends to gravitate towards its cost to produce. In this case PoS coins are produced with little effort/work. Hence a low price ultimately. Crypto currencies are not a commodity, PoW or PoS, doesn't matter. Commodity is something that can be consumed or can be used in manufacture production or you can wear it. Digital commodity definition doesn't cut it either, it's only good to put Bitcoin and others into a specific tax category. Examples of digital commodity are songs, software. Crypto currencies are not digital commodities, you can't use them for their own properties, you can only use them for what they can buy. Which always brings us to utility value and unique use cases. Price of commodity absolutely can go below its cost to produce, if there has been overproduction (or a lot of cheap production) in the past and little demand at present and expected in the future. Price is always a function of supply and demand. Demand = use cases. This is one of my pet peeves with the cryptosphere in general - creators of currencies must not only be able to code, they damn better understand the entire economic function and purpose of their creation if they are to be taken seriously by serious people. One of the least talked about thing about Satoshi was his grasp of economics, commodity markets, social sciences and politics. He was taken seriously not only because he was a genius coder and an idealist, but because he understood the fundamental economic role of his creation. |
|
|
|
After hours of slaving on a very complex logo, I have finally finished.  Man, I am at lost for words; you are like Picasso, Rembrandt, Renoir, Monet and van Gogh combined. This forum is simply undeserving of your talent. If there is any justice left in the world, you will win this competition. |
|
|
|
Maybe he just wants to see coins burn before he strikes a death blow?
Which is stupid. Why not just get it over with instead watching the panic?
Some men just want to watch the world burn. |
|
|
|
Sr. member can't use glow.
I really doubt some of the submissions really can be used as signature.
some of the submissions will only have the top part visible.
I am sure OP knows most designs used invalid formatting for the rank and some wouldn't even fit in the signature area. If he wasn't sure, he could always consult escrow.ms about signature rank limitations. I'm sure the OP and Hashprime host wouldl ask for the codes instead of relying on unscaled snapshots or innuendoes from fellow participants. |
|
|
|
Pure BBcode - no external images. Colors all based on the supplied palette.  |
|
|
|
Only 6-12 months ago there was constant Ripple trolling. Now you look at all the new crypto 2.0 coins and they are trying to do what Ripple has already accomplished.
Nubits, BitsharesX, Nxt etc are all trying to peg fiat to their own ecosystems. Yet from the beginning, you have been able to trade USD, CNY, JPY, GBP etc interchangeably with XRP or ANYTHING on a decentralized exchange (another thing that the competition is only just achieving). Now Ripple has banking partners and smart contracts in development, further leaving the competition in the dust.
And don't even talk about Ripple being centralized to me. Just look at the BitsharesX PoS system or Darkcoin's 'darksend' feature, morons.
Well it is centralized, isn't it? I think it was a great idea. I think it still is, I just think it was a bad execution. I think a lot of people are looking to Stellar now to have a "stellar" execution.
Same founder, same principles, same forum operator - the only difference is Stellar has early external financial backing and some corporate experience on its management team. However, it is still being dominated by two authoritarian figures. Plus, neither Stellar nor Ripple is competing for a pie from the crypto landscape - they are actually competing against fiat and conventional monetary instruments and payment solutions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
