Bitcoin Forum
April 18, 2014, 11:42:36 AM *
News: Due to the OpenSSL heartbleed bug, changing your forum password is recommended.
 
  Home Help Search Donate Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
1121  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Libertarians/ACists who support a rollback of MtGox transactions on: June 25, 2011, 07:54:37 PM
Except that you told me you would keep that car safe, and instead left the keys in the ignition and the doors unlocked.

Where/when exactly was that said?

You know.... I think you may have a point. I don't recall a specific promise of security.

There is, however, an implied promise of security when you ask people to give you their money.

Now that the main site is back, here's your promise:
Quote
Buy and Sell Bitcoins. Fully automated, always available, 24 hours a day, Safe and Easy.

Notice that the promise doesn't say they won't reverse fraudulent transactions.
1122  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Plants Have (Now) Been Grown In Space! on: June 25, 2011, 07:13:47 PM
It's a personal pedantic pet peeve of mine when people confuse free fall with a lack of Earth's gravity. The Earth's gravity acts on the moon. It has no problem reaching a tiny fraction of that distance to a space station.
1123  Bitcoin / Bitcoin Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Is Useless Because It's Too Easy Too Get Robbed on: June 25, 2011, 06:50:03 PM
No one yet has answered this problem: Its too easy to get robbed. You send someone some bitcoins and they can just walk! It's just like posting cash to a stranger, totally stupid.
No-one posts cash to stranger, so no-one will send bitcoins! It's obvious!

In a face to face transaction, use cash - cus its anonymous.
In an internet transaction, use Paypal etc, cuz its the only way not to get robbed.

Add escrow to bitcoin and you've gained nothing now. The whole project is totally pointless!

Why can no-one give me a robust resolution. By robust, I mean not some juvenile, hand waving gibberish arguement.

If you get robbed 1% of the time then charge 1% more to do a transaction with BTC. That way, you spread the risk around and come out even in the long run.
1124  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Free market efficiency and planned obsolescence on: June 25, 2011, 06:44:20 PM
First of all, it's always fallacious to compare our current system of fascism (privately owned business with public regulations) with a truly free market (privately owned business without public regulations). So don't think that our current system is any reflection of an actual free market unless you have taken into consideration all the ways in which the government is interfering.

As far as planned obsolescence goes, if it costs $1 to make a product X that will last 1 year, yet Company A makes it so that it only lasts 6 months then Company B has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 7 months. Also, Company C has an incentive to make a version of product X that will last 8 months, and so on. The length of time that a version of product X will last at a cost of $1 will tend to approach 1 year. Free market competition tends to prevent wastefulness.

As far as pollution goes, as long as people value pristine land, clean air and fresh water, there will be a cost associated with spoiling them. Businesses that can avoid these costs will increase their profits, expand and eventually drive the less profitable polluters out of business. The only reason why we have such a problem with pollution is because governments prevent private property owners from suing for damages from pollution. Also, we a have a tragedy of the commons on rivers and other public land. If you dump garbage on my privately owned land or burn coal fires that pollute my air (assuming I was there first) and I can sue you, you will stop or be sued into bankruptcy. Right now, there's no way to stop some company from polluting the air on my land because the government gives them a free pass.
1125  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Libertarians/ACists who support a rollback of MtGox transactions on: June 25, 2011, 04:10:40 AM
How is anyone supposed to keep track of who is using what legal company and what definitions that company is using?  Traveling 100 miles would be a chore, you'd have to spend weeks figuring out what you could and couldn't do because you'd be subjecting yourself to thousands of different contracts just by driving through places.  How would anyone know their rights, or what they are obligated to do or not do?  You'd arrive at your destination with a bunch of "private" detectives, each with a "right" to bring you in.

I bought three 22" computer monitors from a company. I then bought a triple monitor stand from another company. After a while, it got to be a little unwieldy. The three monitors were taking up too much space. I sold that stand and purchased a double monitor stand as well as an articulating monitor mount from two other companies. Now I have two of the monitors in one room and the third hanging on a wall in another room. Why am I telling you this? Because as I'm doing all this swapping around, I found it slightly amazing that all these different companies producing different stands worked on the same monitors. They were all using the same standard by VESA which isn't a government association. There's no law saying "all you companies have to make compatible parts". Yet somehow, all these companies are cooperating so that I can have all this awesome interchangeable technology. My point is, the free market can settle on standards without being coerced to do so if it's in their best interest and if consumers demand it. All of these companies are doing more business because their mounts will work on virtually any flat display. The same thing can work with roads if the market demands it.
1126  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Quick guide to becoming a libertarian... on: June 25, 2011, 03:21:21 AM
Quicker guide to becoming a libertarian...

Learn to keep your hands off other people and their property.

All food, drugs, and medical treatments should be entirely unregulated: every industry should be able to kill 300,000 per year in the US like the tobacco industry.

I agree that it's pretty messed up how these tobacco companies are putting guns to people's heads and making them smoke cigarettes until they die.

Require perfection as the only applicable standard to judge government: libertarianism, being imaginary, cannot be fairly judged to have flaws.

Where have I heard something like that? Oh yea, when you said...

It's not a solution if it doesn't apply to everyone affected by the problem.
1127  Other / Meta / Re: Can we start to use "troll" correctly? on: June 24, 2011, 09:36:59 PM
I was just trying to inform people on the correct use of a word.

There's no such thing as "correct" use of a word. There is only standard and nonstandard.
1128  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 24, 2011, 09:26:00 PM
I don't claim to be able to predict all the massive number of alternatives ways that a libertarian society could handle such problems.

Let's assume, arguendo, that there is some awful, terrible problem that can't be solved by a libertarian society. I say too bad. It still doesn't justify putting your hands on other people and their property. This entire exercise in coming up with plausible solutions is pointless and irrelevant. In a libertarian society, the only thing you are forced to do is keep your hands off of other people and their property. I challenge someone to give me an example to the contrary. Otherwise, my point stands and consequences be damned. "Let justice be done, though the heavens fall." -John Quincy Adams
1129  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 24, 2011, 06:12:17 PM
If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Wrong.  The argument is about the inconsistent, contradictory, and hypocritcal nature of libertarianism.  In typical fashion, you're attempting to narrow the bounds of the argument to one of your preset talking points - not going to happen.


lol @ asking the probabilities

Methinks you're a bit over your head.

Since you continuously refuse to address my points, wish to ignore what I say and are constantly engaging in name calling, I'll be ignoring you now. As far as I'm concerned, you were refuted. Bye.
1130  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 24, 2011, 05:52:44 PM
If consumers are not fully informed, the system doesn't work.

You're moving goalposts. We were arguing about whether or not you are physically forced to do anything other than keep your hands off of other people and their property. Now you want to argue about whether or not the system works. That's an entirely different argument. Stick to one at a time please.

Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.

Emphasis mine.

Having a limited choice of alternatives is not the same thing as being forced to pick one of those alternatives rather than another. You might be "forced" to rape a woman or go without sex tonight but it's still a voluntary choice to rape or not rape.

Another piss-poor example.

Why is it a "piss-poor" example? Just because you assert that it is so? You didn't even attempt to give a rational argument to back up your claim.

A computer has become a necessity these days in this country.  However, all computer hardware is made by companies that exploit third-world wage slavery labor.  I have a choice between supporting these companies doing things I don't agree with or going without a very important piece of equipment that will have a large impact on my ability to communicate efficiently, get a job, etc.  There is no substitute for computers.

Do without. Become a farmer. The rest of the world doesn't owe you a living.

Credit cards are another modern necessity.  However, the banks and financial institutions offering them are crooked, corrupt, and the same places that caused the recent financial collapse.  Once again I'm forced to support bad thing or simply go without.  There is no substitute for a credit card.

Use cash. Don't spend more than you earn. Nobody owes you a line of credit.

Cars are a modern necessity, especially to those that live in areas with poor public transportation and/or spread out populations.  Cars run on gas.  Liberland theory say that if Company A and Company B charge too much for gas, I can buy at the cheaper Company C.  In the real world, there are so few gas companies that ALL of them charge outrageous prices.  I'm forced to either buy the overpriced gas or go without a car/motorcycle/scooter.  Once again, that is not a true choice, that's an ultimatum.

I just came back from the Netherlands. A friend of mine living in Rotterdam doesn't own a car. Most people don't there. He only owns a bike and survives just fine. Lots of people ride bikes over there. Maybe you should too? It's good exercise.

No, that's not fraud.  That's a lack of disclosure and it was perfectly legal.

Don't confuse our current legal system with the hypothetical libertarian legal system you're trying to argue against. You said that X was being passed off as Y. That's fraud. You can't imply that X is Y when it's not. However, if all you're doing is selling X and people mistakenly think it's Y because they didn't do due diligence, research it, read the label, whatever, then that's not fraud. That's ignorance on the customers part and the blame rests on them.

These CDO's were sold as... CDO's.  "What's in it?" you ask.  "It's a bunch of mortgages," they say.  Fine and dandy.  What they didn't tell you is that it's a bunch of crappy mortgages with a high probability of default.

That's why you should ask what the probabilities are and if they don't know or can't provide evidence to back up their claims, don't do business with them.

Even one better, the INDEPENDANT, PRIVATE rating agencies gave these investments AA to AAA safety ratings because of the way in which the CDO's were contructed.  So what's in them?  Well they're mortgages and the investment is very safe.

That sounds like fraud to me.

They only had to jump through all those hoops and be creative because of the government regulations.  In Liberland they wouldn't even need to do that much because there wouldn't be anyone policing them or setting any disclosure standards at all!

In one sentence you say the regulations didn't prevent what they were designed to prevent and then in the next system you despair that we wouldn't even have those nonworking regulations? That sounds like nothing of value would be lost. However, there will be policing and standards set by the market. That's why we have things like Consumer Reports and other independent agencies that are actually independent because they don't have an artificial barrier to entry. You can't look at our current hybrid system of private companies regulated by the government and draw conclusions about a purely free market from that.

When Joe Investor comes along though, he has a massive information disparity with the financial institutions, just as the consumers in the examples above do, just as ALL consumers do in an unregulated market.

That's why you do your homework and factor that risk into your investments.

Your physical violence BS is a redherring.

No, it's the issue at hand but since you want to ignore it and refuse to meet my challenge to give me an example of anything you are forced to do under threat of physical violence other than keep your hands off of other people and their property then I guess there's nothing left to debate. You give up.

Oh, I get it now.  AyeYo doesn't actually understand the difference between force and the initiation of force.

I'm sure he understands the difference. He just wants to pretend that there's more to liberty than that. He wants alternatives that suit his personal tastes but that's just too bad. I go back to my previous example, he may be "forced" to rape a woman or do without sex tonight but that doesn't mean his choice to rape or not rape isn't voluntary. Just because he doesn't like the alternatives doesn't mean there isn't one that doesn't involve him being forced under threat of physical violence.
1131  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 24, 2011, 05:05:06 AM
Uninformed consumers and citizens cannot make truly voluntary decisions because they have no idea where their dollar is going.

It doesn't matter where the money is going unless that's part of the agreement. I hope you understand the difference between "I'll buy that watch from you" and "I'll buy that watch from you but only if that watch wasn't made by Chinese orphans". If you agree to the former then it's irrelevant who made the watch, it's still voluntary. If you agree to the later then it's fraud if it is the case that the watch was made by Chinese orphans.

Consumers are now forced (there's that word you hate so much) to support the pollution of public resources or go without an entire set of products and/or services offered by this industry.

Emphasis mine.

Having a limited choice of alternatives is not the same thing as being forced to pick one of those alternatives rather than another. You might be "forced" to rape a woman or go without sex tonight but it's still a voluntary choice to rape or not rape.

They market them as something they are not (lack of disclosure due to no regulation, strike one) and sell these instruments to investors as "safe" investments.

Then that's fraud, which I'm against. That's not an argument against my position. If I say my watches are made in the USA but are really made by Chinese orphans, that's fraud. If I say my investments are safe but they're not, that's fraud.

So, you still haven't met my challenge. Give me an example of anything you are forced to do under threat of physical violence other than keep your hands off of other people and their property.
1132  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What the Early Adoptors Don't want you to know on: June 23, 2011, 10:58:43 PM
Deflationary currency is bad because you owe more on your loans every day.

It's called interest. It's a feature of all loans. The rates would reflect deflation.

Economic activity stops because everyone waits until tomorrow to buy something when it's cheaper.

In general people will always have to eat, drink, wear clothes, get to work, educate their children, etc. Consumption will always exist. There's a time preference for now vs. later.

You keep getting paycuts at your job.

You get less pay but your pay is worth more and somehow this is a bad thing?

And the incredibly-ultra-rich have their billions worth more.

See above. Real value isn't going to change. When you have inflation, prices go up. When you have deflation, prices go down. Businesses can't charge as much as before but they can buy more with their money.

Prices tend to approach marginal cost of production, whatever the currency is worth.
1133  Other / Beginners & Help / Re: What the Early Adoptors Don't want you to know on: June 23, 2011, 10:33:48 PM
I have an Economics Degree From Sydney University and also hold a MCSE - I run an IT company.

The reason all the early adopters - read people with a shit load of bit coins, don't want to talk about the fact bitcoins is designed for deflation is because what it really means is this.

1 They mine themselves millions of bitcoins at the start for almost nothing
2 As speculators and Nebbies pile in on the action bitcoin goes up and up
3 The longer they can keep it going the more their bitcoins are worth.

See below a post ENCOURAGING Nebies not to question this fact, they then lock the topic.

Some freemarket - this is not the implementation of an idea I support - wait for bitcoins II or III or a similar idea which is more fairly distributed - the only way they are going to get money for free is from YOU when you buy THEIR bitcoins.  And who's going to buy them from you?

I'm sure you'd say the same thing about people that had the foresight to buy into Google's IPO. Life is unfair because nature makes it that way. The early adopters had no way of knowing for certain that BTC would increase in value. They took a risk, forwent other opportunities and fortunately for them, it paid off. Do you think any other crypto currency is not going to have early adopters? Any system that doesn't give early adopters an advantage is going to be worthless as a currency. There's a reason why the banks don't all just say "everyone has a million dollars in their account". That's because we aren't all equally productive and equally consumptive. You're probably a neoclassical economist judging from your post, which is probably worse than being completely ignorant of economics altogether. That kind of economist knows just enough to sound convincing and mislead others with damaging beliefs because it sounds like stuff the public wish were true or want to hear.
1134  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 10:03:50 PM
You cannot volunteer for something if you do not fully understand what you're volunteering for.

I agree with you there but you're misapplying that maxim. If I tell you that I'm selling X for $6 then you are volunteering to buy X for $6. As long as it's actually X and actually $6, it's voluntary. However, if I bait and switch you, that's not voluntary. That's fraud. I mentioned in my previous post that fraud is completely unacceptable.

Where we seem to disagree is that you think failing to disclose that I bought X for $5 and sold it for $6, or telling you where to buy it cheaper, is somehow fraud. Your doctor analogy isn't applicable because there's nothing I'm physically doing to harm you, unlike informing you about a risky surgery so you can give informed consent.

The good news is that at least we are having an actual disagreement now instead of hurling insults and personal attacks.

Once again you prove my point that you're only interested in your brand of freedom that applies only to the people you see fit to care about.

Damn, I spoke too soon. I'm not sure what you think you gain from these personal attacks. I'm either right or I'm wrong. You should be able to explain why based on evidence and reason. Saying that "you don't care about other people" or "you're just a big old meanie" adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. It's just noise. If you want to vent your frustration, go squeeze a stress ball.

Please, let's keep this academic, thanks.
1135  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 08:04:26 PM
if an economic transaction is to be truly voluntary and informed, all parties must have equal power to accept, reject, or influence its terms, as well as equal access to information

The problem is that you're conflating "voluntary" and "informed" as if those were inseparable. As far as the law is concerned, it's only the voluntary part of the issue that should be enforced. We need to be protected from force and fraud. But let's say that I know where to buy X for $5 and you only know where to buy X for $7. It may or may not be immoral to exploit your ignorance and sell you X for $6 but I'm not taking a side on that issue because it's irrelevant to the issue of legality. Also, let's say that I'm the only one that knows how to get Y which is in high demand and therefore gives me a natural monopoly. I start charging $1,000 for Y because you'll pay it even though it only costs me $1 to obtain Y. You can't influence the terms equally but it's still my Y and therefore you can either pay the price or do without. It may or may not be immoral to gouge you on the price but again, that's irrelevant to the issue of legality. In both cases, X and Y, everything is still voluntary because I'm not physically forcing you to do business with me nor am I physically preventing you from doing business with anyone else.

Like I asked before, what else are you forced to do under threat of violence that doesn't logically follow from physically forcing you to keep your hands off of other people and their stuff? If you can't name anything, this debate is over.
1136  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 01:20:57 PM
Quote
I'd prefer peaceful means but if you touch me or my property, you do so at your own peril.

Sounds a bit threatening.

I'm threatening to defend myself and my property.

I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

The only thing you're being forced to do is keep your paws off of other people and their stuff.


Completely false.  See all previous posts.

What else are you forced to do that doesn't logically follow from keeping your hands off of other people and their stuff? Please be specific.
1137  Economy / Marketplace / Re: up to 50 people, get paid 0.10 BTC to change your signature on: June 23, 2011, 03:07:45 AM
lol what a moron running a loser website
you can take your measley .10 bitcoins and shove them
I'll pay the confirmed users .2 btc to remove that dumbass link

You mad bro?

I'll bite.

I'm sorry but you registered after this thread was created. You're not eligible. Please remove my link from your signature so you're not giving me something from nothing.

Everyone else, please make sure to read the first post carefully.
1138  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 03:04:29 AM
Have you read up on Libertarian punishment theory?

A bit. I get the initiation and escalation of force arguments. I thought you were making the argument in your post to AyeYo that you thought you had the right to do whatever you wanted to "protect your stuff".

I'm not sure how you got that idea but hopefully the misunderstanding has been resolved.
1139  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 02:45:09 AM
1) How did they get that stuff?

Homesteading or legitimate title transfer.

What if that stuff belongs to everyone like clean air? Can I shoot you for polluting my air with your wood stove?

No, restitution and punishment have to be proportional. If you point a gun at me and demand my wallet, I can shoot you. If you just grab my wallet and run, I can't shoot you. However, once I capture you, you owe me my wallet, plus another wallet, plus the cost of capture, plus the cost of how scared you made me.

Have you read up on Libertarian punishment theory?

2) Who decided that taking a human life was a morally acceptable way of defending property that can be made whole through restitution on other ways?

Nobody because you're making a straw man argument.
1140  Other / Politics & Society / Re: This is where I stop believing Obama is possibly a rational, intelligent man. on: June 23, 2011, 02:23:47 AM
I'm being forced under threat of violence to conform to a society whose rules I do not agree with and whose "coercive" market forces (your definition, not the real one) affect my daily life even though I do not agree with the policies that created them - just like you living in our current society.

The only thing you're being forced to do is keep your paws off of other people and their stuff.

We can debate whether or not you should be allowed to rob, rape and murder all day but as soon as you try to do any of those things, the debate is over and we settle this with violence. It's your call. I'd prefer peaceful means but if you touch me or my property, you do so at your own peril.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 [57] 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!