Frankly, I love JeffK and AyeYo as much as any other human being. They might be arrogant, presumptous... Heck, I have my fair share of impatience but they often present a good argument. I appreciate their presence.
I want the best for them but I also think their presence on this forum adds absolutely nothing at all. They are loudmouthed douche bags and I hope they get bored with trolling soon. I like all of you to  . No point in hating when there is already so much hate on this planet. I'm glad to see there is at least one statist on this forum that has some honor. I look forward to debating you without exchanging insults. I've given up on everyone else though. If I'm going to be called a libtard, etc, I plan on showing these people the same disrespect. |
|
|
|
I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong). The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot. Familarize yourself... http://www.standardandpoors.com/home/en/ushttp://www.moodys.com/http://www.fitchratings.com/index_fitchratings.cfmThey rate investments. People that sell financial instruments brag about how their products are rated AAA by S&P. In other words, you're an idiot. You're not even trying anymore. Good day sir. |
|
|
|
I guess you can't see the significant difference between consumer reports saying, "Yea bro, this is a nice TV" (totally subjective and irrelevant if wrong) and S&P saying, "Yea bro, this is an extremely safe investment" (rating that should be totally objective and could, and did, cause systemtic collapse if wrong). The entire reason you started whining about independent rating agencies is because I said "Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by 'Really Trustworthy Rating Agency'." which is what Consumer Reports does. Now you're talking about investments, which is completely irrelevant. In other words, you're an idiot. |
|
|
|
Things like 'common sense' and 'facts' mean little in any argument with posters like bitcoin2cash or Immanuel, so there is little to do besides try to get a rise out of them for shits and giggles.  |
|
|
|
Anyone stupid enough to move there would be a case for the Darwin Award. Sour grapes. |
|
|
|
Because independent rating agencies are so reliable. The logical fallacy you're committing is called cherry picking. Since when are Consumer Reports and Underwriters Laboratories unreliable? You pick one bad example and pretend that it speaks for all ratings agencies. You're either trolling or an idiot. |
|
|
|
call the Coast Guard for help No, just call FEMA. That really worked out well for New Orleans. Oh wait, I forgot, you're one of those idiots that thinks the government has your best interests at heart and can never fuck up. Totally irrelevant to what I said. You're just not intelligent enough to see the connection. |
|
|
|
|
I found the problem. It's not an issue with bitcoind hanging. I've figured out a solution. I'm implementing it now. It will be permanently fixed very soon.
EDIT: It's fixed. Thanks for your patience. Everyone with a balance with our service will receive a deposit of 0.10 BTC from me as an apology for the downtime.
|
|
|
|
call the Coast Guard for help No, just call FEMA. That really worked out well for New Orleans. Oh wait, I forgot, you're one of those idiots that thinks the government has your best interests at heart and can never fuck up. |
|
|
|
They tend to focus on some nebulous idea of "freedom", but only as it applies to them, with little thought to the rest of society. For instance, having the government fund all college education would undoubtedly give the lower classes more freedom and opportunity, but all a libertarian will see is his taxes going up. "TAXES ARE THEFT" is always the rallying cry, but the actual effects of these policies on poor people are forever an afterthought, and questions about them usually tend to get brushed away with "the free market will provide!" as if it's some sort of magic genie. You tell them, "Hey, wait a minute. Charities are stretched to their limits now and have a hard time providing for people even with the social safety nets we have. How could things be better without welfare?" and again, you get "the free market will provide!", as if it's a foregone conclusion, despite the fact that it has a long record of plainly not working with absolutely no indication that it will in the future. First of all, the college education example is a terrible example to support your case. Why is college so expensive? Because of two reasons, one, intellectual property rights make it so that textbook publishers can gouge students or face fines for infringement. If it weren't for intellectual property, which is incompatible with libertarianism, textbooks would be dirt cheap. My calculus book costs $120! Think about that for a moment. Why the hell am I learning about a rule first published by a guy that died in 1704 yet still have to pay $120?! Get rid of government interference and that simply wouldn't happen. The other reason is that governments only recognize certain accreditation agencies if they conform to their criteria. This creates an artificial barrier for educators. If you want to help the poor, then stop interfering with the free market. As for welfare, guess what, the world doesn't owe you anything. I'm generous though. If I see you in the street and you're hungry, I'll invite you to come grab a sandwich with me. I've done it before. However, I can't feed everyone and it's not my responsibility to. If voluntary charity can't solve the problem then that's just tough. Libertarianism isn't Utopia. I only claim that it can do a better job than governments at giving people what they want voluntarily. If nobody wants to help the poor, you have no right to hold a gun to their heads and force them to do it. We consider them ignorant of history because several hundred years of capitalism have shown us over and over and over ad nauseum that when businesses aren't regulated, they WILL try to get away with every horrible thing they can, up to and including murder, at the expense of their workers, the environment, or anything else that stands in the way of higher profits. Under libertarianism murder wouldn't be allowed so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything. You also wouldn't be able to sell rat meat labeled as beef. Allowing fraud isn't even open for discussion. Regulations would still exist but they would be voluntary and decided by the market. Businesses would brag about how their products are rated A+ by "Really Trustworthy Rating Agency". Brandnames would be hugely important and guarded like a hawk. It's kind of hard to take you seriously when you don't even understand that tiny fact. There's a reason you'll find about a million more poli-sci professors who are Marxist or socialist than libertarian, even though the former are far more publically despised in the U.S. The majority of Americans believe in God too. Does that prove anything at all? No, that's an ad populum fallacy aka bandwagon fallacy. Nothing you've said so far makes a case for rejecting libertarianism. You simply made a bunch of unsubstantiated claims and logical fallacies. |
|
|
|
AyeYo you are an asshole. You are the perfect example why this forum has been derailed. Its impossible to have an honest debate with assholes like you around.
How do progressives like this one pass as loving and caring human beings?
Most statists are immoral/idiots, otherwise they would have stopped or will soon stop being one. |
|
|
|
Or, you know, they'll be seen as easy targets by the companies that do have armies and will be promptly and violently taken over. Really now. I love that the people complaining about regulations creating barriers to entry for small businesses are the same ones who are advocating for a society where those businesses will need to hire private armies to fend off bigger businesses. It's fairly simple. As long as the number of people that want to use aggression to achieve their goals are outnumbered by the people that don't, we'll win. If not, we're fucked no matter how society is organized. What the hell? Mind elaborating on this, because I really don't see what this is supposed to mean. Both seduction and rape can look exactly alike with the same results. There can be penetration, fluids exchanged, smacking around, etc but one is moral and the other is immoral. Why? Because seduction is consensual. If you and a sexual partner agree to smack each other around, I may find it obscene, perverse, whatever, but it's still voluntary so even though the observable consequences are the same, it's a very different situation. The fact that we would have we still have workers and society under libertarianism is not an issue because it will be voluntary, in the sense that it won't be perpetuated by physical aggression or fraud. Based on the history of what modern corporations have been able to get away with and face little or no outcry or boycott, we apparently don't shun people who do things like that. Then what's the issue? If we're not prepared to shun people like that then how can we insist we have a huge problem with it? I may hate that gas costs the current price it does but I still pay for it because considering the alternatives, I value the gas more than the dollar amount. If I had the converse evaluation, say if gas as $1,000 a gallon, I'd keep my money and buy a bike. This also assumes that the newspapers that would have reported those misdeeds wouldn't just be a different division of the same company that comitted them. Or making ad money from them. Or anything else that gives them financial incentive to cover it up. Newspapers are businesses just like any other. Different ones cater to different interests. If the demand for tabloid celebrity gossip is high, there will be more of those. If the demand for "just tell me what I want to hear" is high you'll get heavily biased news sources. There's nobody else to blame but ourselves. However, there are companies like Consumer Reports and if we have a high enough demand for it, they could expand or similar sources could enter the market. Also, I noticed that you didn't respond to: I didn't ignore it at all, that's why I specifically said "All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place." If you change your mind, decide you don't like the color, the flavor or whatever, you're goddamned right that's your fault. Next time, be more careful. As long as there was no fraud involved, it's definitely your fault. Does that mean you agree? |
|
|
|
Ah yes, and if you can't afford a private security firm? Even better, if you can't afford one and the guy who wants to rob you can? Taken to its logical extent, we'd have companies with full mercenary armies going to war with each other all the time. War costs. Peace doesn't. The companies that go to war with each other will be out-competed by the ones that don't. And how would any of this be different under libertarianism anyway? You still have workers, you still have a society. It's the difference between seduction and rape. Mutually beneficial doesn't mean fair or moral or non-coercive. If I'm dying of thirst in the desert and you sell me a glass of water for $10 million, I guess you could say that's beneficial for me in that I get to stay alive, but it doesn't mean you didn't just rip me off. It's not our job to enforce morality on each other with violence. We shun people that do things like that but we don't hold a gun to their head and tell them to stop. That's why we don't lock people up for cheating on their partner or calling their grandmother a cunt. It also ignores the fact that what may seem beneficial at the outset to one party may be just the opposite in reality. But I guess that's the fault of the person who got screwed, right? Should have been more of a rational actor? I didn't ignore it at all, that's why I specifically said "All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place." If you change your mind, decide you don't like the color, the flavor or whatever, you're goddamned right that's your fault. Next time, be more careful. As long as there was no fraud involved, it's definitely your fault. |
|
|
|
So you're starting off with a subset of a niche market (bitcoins, people who want to buy them with cash and trust some random guy to send money through the mail), but you're going even further by declaring you only want a subset of a subset of a niche? I don't know why I ever complained. This business plan is brilliant, and you're sure to have upwards of five or six customers in no time. Newsflash: I'm not doing this to get wealthy. Bitcoin is free market money. I'm here to support that. I'm also covering my costs so I'm satisfied with that. I'm sure you're one of those ignorant morons that thinks "free market equals selfishness" but charity and activism are part of the free market. I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense. And if you don't keep your hands off other people, get ready to feel the wrath of a completely powerless government with absolutely no ability to punish you! Herp derp! More like, get ready to feel the wrath of my shotgun or if I don't catch you, my private security firm will. Most people on this planet understand that theft is wrong when it comes to one-on-one interactions. It's only when they are fooled into thinking of themselves as worker ants, bees or cogs in this great machine called "society" that they abandon simple ideas such as "keep your hands to yourself". No, no, let's rob each other in order to protect ourselves from robbery! I still can't get over that argument and how central it is to the beliefs of people like you. It's like this weird fantasy world where the businessman can do no wrong and if he does do wrong, it was totally the government's fault somehow. Every damn time. Regulations made him do it! Limited liability made him do it! That's the best one because it makes some amount of sense, but the proposed solution to that problem is an environment with no way to hold anyone with any power liable for anything. All you have to understand is that free trades, i.e. trades where I don't say "accept or I'll kill you" are beneficial. Why? Let's say that I want to trade my watch for your sandwich. If we both accept the trade then necessarily, I must want your sandwich more than my watch, and necessarily, you must want my watch more than your sandwich, after the trade, we both end up with something we want more. Otherwise, why the fuck would either of us agree to the trade?! It's pretty damned simple. All free trades are mutually beneficial before the trade takes place. Convince me that's incorrect and I'll submit to whatever dumbfuck collectivist ideology you support. |
|
|
|
You can't point to why your ideology is superior. I can point to why my ideology is superior. My ideology only requires that you keep your hands off of other people and their property unless it's in self-defense. Other than that, you can do whatever you want. Everything else is immoral. |
|
|
|
US budget 2010: $3.55 tril That says absolutely nothing about how much I actually use. I really don't need or want social security, medicaid, foreign wars, etc, etc. Your numbers are worthless just like the posts you make. |
|
|
|
the break-even income point for paying your fair share was ~$150,000/year [citation needed] |
|
|
|
Dunno why I'd bother posting this on a forum of people who have never had real jobs, let alone factory or labor ones before though. Ad hominem plus I'm sure I've done more back breaking labor than you have, digging septic line ditches, hauling bags of concrete mix, etc and I still say your ideology is dead from the neck up. |
|
|
|
Oh, who gives a fuck what you think, I'm just popping in to say that the more you post on this forum the fewer non-crazy customers you'll get. It's pretty funny how the people on here who think of capitalism as some kind of God-like force that can do no wrong are also the ones who are so bad at business that they see no problem running around calling potential customers "whining parasites". My service is targeted towards libertarians and anarchists. You're still welcome to use my service if you change your mind but I really won't miss you if you don't. |
|
|
|
But it really shouldn't come as any surprise that Forbes would be quick to condemn someone of Buffett's stature speaking ill of our current rich-favoring tax code - someone might actually... *gasp!* ...believe him. Ad hominem fallacy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
