So with goats they're likely to butcher it and eat it right away rather than what may be best for the long term. If the program has strings attached like passing on the first born female goat then this won't happen unless monitoring, enforcement or incentives are present.

People in developed countries really do not know how uneducated people in less developed countries actually are, and even more so they don't understand how hard it is to change things.

I thought that was a reasonable expectation: Where was my donation used? I asked Heifer International roughly where my donation was used so that I could start marking my map, and continue to donate. What Heifer Internation stated was they couldn't tell me where my funds were used. Furthermore, they didn't even provide me any message (card/email/letter) to provide me of proof that I even had made the donation. They told me to print my own statement from the website.

In 1980 I worked as a student in international development in Panama. I met a development worker there who excoriated Heifer International. He said HI's gift of an animal trapped impoverished farmers in a cycle of debt because they could not afford the necessary feed so Heifer gave them a loan for it which they could only pay back by selling the food they produced rather than eating it.

Just going sane in an insane world.

And I'm sure the dead victims would have liked to been able to defend their lives, as well.

People who have never had a goat may not know how to properly care for one to ensure its health and longevity.  Even though their neighbors may have a goat and have taken care of it, that doesn't mean it's the best method either.  Maybe their neighbor's goats could be living twice as long, and produce better milk in greater quantities if they had the knowledge that this organization could provide.  The thing is, you just don't know - you're only making assumptions.

Certainly, many charities could be considered frauds, given how much "overhead" they have, but I think you need more information to go by in this case. Start digging.  Find out what the $120 goes towards, besides just the acquisition of a goat.  Look at that charity report website that shows what percentage of donations go towards the people.  But don't go around calling charities frauds when you have no evidence to support it.

I wouldn't go that far.  Perhaps, a less efficient user of their resources.

Definition of fraud
noun
[mass noun]
wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal

As Coinlab mentioned, perhaps heifer takes up the task of teaching the people who receive these goats how to care for them, while offloading the responsibility of acquiring and delivering said goats to a 3rd party?

But banning all guns because a few crazy people used some to kill a few dozen people, that just makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Really? The opinion of some who has been the victim of one of these shootings doesn't carry any weight, and, in your opinion should be ignored because it's biased? Are you fucking crazy?

i know that bothar is linked with oxfam for the supplys stuff.. but heifer is not a goat SUPPLIER.

heifer ask for £120.. but oxfam/bothar only ask for £50/£55.. so i would prefer to give oxfam the £120 so they can buy atleast 2 goats and 40% towards a 3rd goat. which adds up the more that is donated.

heifer keeps atleast £60-£70 of funds..

i got nothing against a charity that atleast gathers some money for worthy charities as its better then no money.. but for the most effective use of the money. give it to oxfam

I feel sympathy for those who have lost coins. (...) Still, I feel sorry for them and I'd hate to think that anyone lost anything they couldn't afford to lose. (...) You took what I said seriously and I thought it was a patently ridiculous piece of comic theatre. Hopefully no one else did, but I suppose I should be more careful, and I will in future. I've never written anything on these forums with a desire to make someone miserable.

More idiocy from AugustoCroppo... You're not fooling anyone, numbnuts.

Aside from the "public property" quip, that's a description of an AnCap phyle, or society group. The whole "forming an association," forming a contract, giving of oneself to work together to overcome obstacles of life, etc. The reason is that what is being described is a contract.

This body is called the "State or Sovereign"; the members, who, taken together, form "the people" are the "citizens" as participating in the supreme authority, and "subjects" as subjected to the laws.

What we have in reality isn't a contract, since contracts are voluntary agreements between two or more people.

Two can play the definition game:
"Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest."

Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong), ultimately serve their own self-interest.[1][2][3]

It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will "do well by doing good".[4][5][6]

However, that social and ethical foundation has been seriously eroded over the past two centuries -- as glorification of greed has replaced enlightened self-interest.

He answered, briefly, that if people were free to follow their selfish impulses, the problems would work themselves out. This is due to the idea of enlightened self-interest, i.e. that it is in the best interests of each individual to do things that benefit the group. (He gave the example of planting fruit trees on his property that he would never live to eat from, because doing so raises his property value.)

Until you can explain how we can possibly settle that obligation, we'll just have to call it slavery, if only for a lack of a better word  If you can provide a better word for an obligation that can not be settled, or describe how to settle that obligation, please do so.

The social order originates in an altogether primitive and unanimous agreement. When men in the state of nature have reached that stage where the individual is unable to cope with adverse forces, they are compelled to change their way of living. They cannot create new forces, but they can unite their individual energies and thus overcome the obstacles to life. The fundamental problem is, then, "to find a form of association which defends and protects with the whole common energy, the person and property of each associate, and by which each individual associate, uniting himself to all, still obeys only himself and remains as free as before". The solution is a contract by which each one puts in common his person and all his forces under the supreme direction of the "general will". Where results a moral and collective body formed of as many members as there are persons in the community. In this body the condition is equal for all, since each gives himself wholly; the union is perfect, since each gives himself unreservedly; and finally, each, giving himself to all, gives himself to nobody. This body is called the "State or Sovereign"; the members, who, taken together, form "the people" are the "citizens" as participating in the supreme authority, and "subjects" as subjected to the laws. By this contract man passes from the natural to the civil state, from instinct to morality and justice. He loses his natural freedom and his unlimited right to all that he attempts or is able to do, but he gains civil liberty and the ownership of all that he possesses by becoming the acknowledged trustee of a part of the public property.

http://frankgervais.com/newdirectory/logger.html

Proof that either dank lied through his teeth and never lost the phone, or is currently pushing back his loan obligation to Squall to buy an iPhone.

The rest of the bullshit and obvious delirious content is just cream on the turn sundae, and at this point the community should really ask themselves if they want to keep such a member around, at least with the ability to request money.

Any of those other reasons would also be self-interest. Actions are either neutral, self-destructive or for self-interest. If I stand in the cold dishing out soup to the homeless, it is because it provides me with something, even if it is only a feeling of well-being or just assuaging some white guilt.

But this fuckwit Taaki takes the absolute cake. Read that goddamned thing, read what he says, read what the people ask, what he answers.

So here's the facts: Bitcoin is a great thing that has attracted a number of indescribable shitheads early on.

Fuck.

(Question 2)
Well how, you talk about bitcoin being completely decentralized. Where does the supply come from?

(Taaki)
Mathematics. Yeah.

(Question 4)
Are bitcoins a creative form of electricity?

(Taaki)
Uh…that’s not quite how it works, but maybe you can put it that way if– like it’s actually like something that’s like, it’s like, if you were asking me like, ‘Oh, uh…wh-what is an operating system, is it like a computer?’ you know, I would have to explain like, okay there’s a (ios?) layer in your computer and you need to have access to these device drivers, you know? So, it’s part of like some…complex–

(Question 7)
But you condemned the financial industry and bitcoin is actually an extreme example of that. You know?

(Taaki)
I don’t think so. Like I traveled to Amsterdam, to London, to Warsaw, to Prague, you know to Barcelona, and I never once, oh yeah and Rio de Janiero, and I never once paid money to money changers, like I was able to change my money without paying any fees whatsoever.

All governments suffer a recurring problem: Power attracts pathological personalities. It is not that power corrupts but that it is magnetic to the corruptible. Such people have a tendency to become drunk on violence, a condition to which they are quickly addicted. -Missionaria Protectiva, Text QIV (decto)

Chapter House Dune: Dune: Book Six
By Frank Herbert

Full description for Chapter House Dune
The long-established galactic order is passing. The Honoured Matres, ruthless and all-conquering, have destroyed the planet Dune. In opposition, hard-pressed but still fighting back, the Bene Gesserit sisterhood co-ordinate their resistance from their as-yet undiscovered home world, Chapter House. Now as a new Scattering is planned, they still have one carefully nurtured asset: the sandworms, offspring of the only giant worm salvaged from Dune. Chapter House is to about to turn into a barren wasteland: Chapter House will be the new Dune.

Of course they do. But where roses exist inside a garden, they are the centerpiece (leadership, in our analogy), or often the entire theme of the garden (the entire power structure, in our example). You can have a garden without roses,  but the temptation to add a rosebush is constant (Fascistic governments attract sociopaths), and once you have one rosebush, you're well on your way to having a rose garden (sociopaths tend to take over any fascistic power structure they are introduced to).

So the analogy is not only valid, it's damn near perfect.

PATHOCRACY

Political Ponerology

No exact results found for Ponerology in the dictionaries.

No exact results found for Pathocracy in the dictionaries.

Ponerology

As indicated by the title of his book, Lobaczewski chose the term ponerology as the name for the discipline dedicated to the study of issues such as those covertly investigated by him and his colleagues. While their main focus was, and the focus of Political Ponerology is, how these issues play out in political systems, the field of ponerology as a whole is much broader. It facilitates and promotes inquiries - and the development of the necessary related working terminology and categories – regarding the entire spectrum of evil, including:

What is evil?

How does evil arise? - Lobaczewski calls the process by which evil originates ponerogenesis and ponerology aims to precisely reveal its “general laws.”

To what extent is evil man made or purposeful?

Why does evil arise where it does?

What forms does evil take?

To what extent can we predict the times, places and shapes in which evil will emerge?

Why do people vary in their responses to evil as they do?

Is evil preventable and, if so, when and how?

Moreover, ponerology is committed to answering these questions from a scientific, rather than from a purely philosophical, theological, supernatural, artistic, emotional or moral perspective.

Although Lobaczewski’s work examines many aspects of evil, it really revolves around the phenomenon of pathocracy, as reflected in several of Political Ponerology’s aspects:

Part V of Political Ponerology is titled “Pathocracy”

Nearly all of the book’s other parts focus on exploring either the process by which pathocracy arises or its relevance to various areas of society such as normal people’s lives, the fields of psychology and psychiatry or religion.

Lobaczewski, in the book, identifies certain well-known systems that he views as examples of pathocracy and considers the psychopathologies of their leaders.

Political Ponerology’s own postscript paints the book primarily as an explication of pathocracy, describing it as:

“The depiction of the ways and means by which pathological figures take over and undermine the social structures of normal people...”

Roberry: 67920
Rape: 13232
Murder: 550
Aggravated assault: 17772
Total: 99474

2011 UK Population 626410000
Outcome is: 158 per 100,000

USA is 386.3 per 100,000
source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime

You're an idiot.

No, seriously. A fucking moron.

Let's look at that table, shall we? Notice the footnote?
"1   See note at bottom of page 3."

Well, let's flip back to page three, shall we?
Here's the note (feel free to waste your time and upload an image of it):
"No injury includes harassment, possession of weapons, other offences against children and common assault, although some offences counted in more serious violence may also include no injury, e.g. threats to murder."

So 51% of the crimes were common assault or possession, or some such.

The other 49% (2009 incidents per 100 000, to be precise) were more serious violent crimes, such as murder threats, aggravated assault, muggings, and actual murder.

No matter how much bullshit you sling, you can't make the truth into anything but the truth.

Ahh, here we go. On the top of page 6, there's a table which indicates that 51% of the crimes were "less serious," things like simple assault, that sort of thing. So it's not so bad, I guess. Only about 2,000 per 100,000 people.