But that statement doesn't hold up to scrutiny.  There might very well be mad and bad guys who work as groups who hold ill will towards myself, but how is that your responsibility?  And if you are responsible for my protection, to what extent are you responsible?  These aren't just bs questions that I'm making up as I go, they are intended to guide you to think along a pattern.

Actually, quite the reverse is true.  Laws tend to be written as generalities, and the details are finalized by judicial precedent.  And there are plenty of such laws that have been interpreted to the very end that you claim doesn't occur, namely that we don't protect kids from a smacked ass.

Good, good.  We've had wonderful progress this session.


Sure, but where is the limit?  Can you cause harm, based upon the belief that your neighbor intends to do harm to youself, your property, or your family; in order to prevent your neighbor from doing harm?  Can you do the same, if your neighbor intends you no harm, but you believe that he is a threat to others?  How can you make such a determination?


You think that I need protection, or do you think that you need protection?

Um, no.  Sorry.  Certain officials are exempt from possession, because they are the cops that persue this kind of crime, and must have a base reference that the court has previously declared defines the crime.  Also so that they can actually posses evidence.  Certain professionals have legitimate access to such things, so that they can assess the impact of the crime on both the victims and the pedafile accussed, as well as understand pedafiles and their psycological dysfunctions.  Medical professionals have exemptions, because otherwise some medical photos would fall into the catagory of child porn.

I think we have progress, then.  So, whether the subject is 'child porn' or 'spells' or simply 'thought crime'; in your opinion what has actually gone wrong with the system?  Is there some kind of rational distinction between justifiable prevention of harm to children and thought crime based upon same?  Or is it all just an arbitrary line that we must all respect, once some government body has negotiated the line?

You assume incorrectly.  Child porn is possessible by authorized agents of the government as well as certain psycologists, medical doctors and other such professionals.  It's also admissible in court, and a jury would be expected to endure the horror of it.  He is describing a general pretext, which can be used to convict any enemy of the state at will.  Once upon a time, a charge of witchcraft was one such type of knowledge.  

EDIT:  Child porn is officially illegal, not because of it's content, but because of the assumption that possesion of it implies that the holder either 1) produced it himself, thus is directly violating a child or 2) purchased it from someone who did, and thus was suppporting a market based upon harming children.  If you understood the NAP, and the logic that supports it, you would understand that child porn is just as much a violation of the NAP by the same exact logic.

And that is one of the main errors.  I don't even expect you to make any effort, AyeYo, because you're just here for the entertainment value.

I'll even make it simplier.  What principles are your politcal ideologies based upon, if any?  Among that set of principles, which are in conflict with libertarian principles and how?

Wow, that was quick!  So, in your own words, how would you sum up your new understanding of where libs get the NAP from?

Yes, something.  Come back when you have figured out where the NAP is derived from.  Here's a small clue to get you started, where do I get my signature quote from?

No, you don't.

This fact becomes more apparent the more of your posts that I read.  Perhaps you should enrich yourself by extending your breadth of understanding concerning libertarian thought by reading a few articles by better philosophers than can be found on an open Internet forum.


Yes, and I have repeatedly referred to those forms of prevention.  You just don't understand or accept them.  I'm not interested in a circle jerk. 

Who?  I don't know, is his definition of money the same as Aristotle's?

"The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a student of Plato and teacher of Alexander the Great. He discovered, formulated, and analyzed the problem of "commensurability", or how different things can be measured in the same units. He wondered how ratios for a fair exchange of different things could be set. He searched for a principle that makes it possible to equate what is apparently unequal and non-comparable.

Aristotle found that money, as a common measure of everything, makes things commensurable and makes it possible to equalize them. In the form of money, he says, a substance has a telos, a purpose, and that in creating money individuals have devised a unit of measure on whose basis fair and just exchange can take place. Aristotle thus maintains that everything can be expressed in the universal equivalent of money, and argues that money was introduced to satisfy the requirement that all items exchanged must be comparable in some way.

Within such a frame work, Aristotle defined the characteristics of a good form of money – which must be:

•Durable: Money must stand the test of time and the elements. It must not fade, corrode, or change through time;
•Portable: Good money needs to hold a high amount of 'worth' relative to its weight and size;
•Divisible: Money should be relatively easy to separate and re-combine without affecting its fundamental characteristics. An extension of this idea is that the item should be "fungible", defined as "being freely exchangeable or replaceable, in whole or in part, for another of like nature or kind."
•Intrinsically Valuable: This value of money should be independent of any other object and contained in the money itself, starting with rarity."

http://goldnews.bullionvault.com/money_aristotle_050120092

Only commodities can solve the final characteristic requirement to any degree, and neither Bitcoin nor the US $ can do so.  Currencies are standard units, widely agreed upon by either convention or fiat.  So a coin minted from a defined amount of silver, and so stated upon it's face, is both a currency and a money.  A melted lump of an unassayed volume of pure gold is money, but it's not a currency.  I don't like how this particular article explains "intrinsically valuable", because I think that it's flawed.  I don't agree that gold or silver have any value "contained in the money itself" as such.  Value is always subjective, but the value of gold is not rooted in what a person could trade for it, but in what it was useful for (beyond a trade medium), whether or not the person who held it actually intended to do so.


Okay.

Your assumptions are destroyed by actual human history.  In some markets, salt was nearly as valuable as gold by weight, and was oftentimes traded as a medium of exchange independently of gold or silver.  You trade in salt exacltly the same way that you would have traded in gold, by weight.


Raity is a secondary issue to the ability of trade.  Rarity contributes to the portability problem, since less weight implies more value, however rarity also contributes to a lack of recognition.  Platinum was considered a usless byproduct of silver mining for hundreds of years, because it was too rare for it to be useful as a medium of exchange.  The Spanish famously made cannons out of platinum in order to protect their gold shipments, because they had no other use for it.
I was referring to your expectation that I was trying to prove time preferences.  You jsut lost a little more respect.


That's not een a good dodge.  I ask again, by what reason (logic) to you make such a claim?  Because you think so, because someone you listen to thinks so?  Do you even have a reason, or is it just anouther form of religious belief?

Why?  Why should they be zero?

Why should htey be any particular number?


I don't agree, but it's still illrelevant.  Why is suppressing the interestes rate or the time preference ideal?  Why isn't natrual money ideal?  Why wouldn't establishment of a cryptocurrency that mimics natural money be ideal?  You ahve no support.


Honestly I don't know.  And neither do you, and that is my point here.  It is a fatal conceit to believe that you can design an economy.  You might just luck into a partial success, but I think that your errors of though are predictable, and will lead to a great many tears.

And he didn't have any more ability to assemble or deploy a nuclear weapon than you do, and the government regulations on such materials has nearly zero to do with either of you.

No, I don't.  You really don't understand what's going on here, do you?

I'm proposing no such thing.  Treaties are simply agreements between actors within an anarchy, they have no direct force upon Osama or his fellow travelers.  They could have mined and refined their own U235, but they didn't.  Why?  Because it was beyond their expertise and resources.  I did not propose that those who can refine U235 (mostly major corporations in Western nations, and a few Western governments) sell Osama weapons grade materials.  But if they did, they would be accountable to their treaty peers (anarchist rules, remember?).  Any government agency or corporate entity would be liable for the results of selling finished products to customers that they do not know.  This is the very reason that fuel grade U235 isn't refined to greater than 20% by mass, as a rule (but not an absolute); because there are few reactor designs that require greater than that level of refinement while there are zero nuclear weapons designs that could even theoretically work at less than 50%, most require 95% or greater.  Thus, as I mentioned, weapons grade u235 has no established legitimate civil use; and persuit of it is thus a rational reason for society to be suspect without your explaination.  If a legitmate civil use of 50%+ U235 fuel assemblies were to be established, then you might have a point.  But that isn't the case now, so you don't.

I'll try to find settings, but I coundn't find it when I tried.

Thanks.

Then I don't know how to enable it.

I'm not infringing upon his free speech by censoring him within this forum.  He is free to leave and start any forum he likes.

The present system that you speak of is simply the laws of nature.  Osama was not limited by Western governments' intent.

The current model assumes incorrectly, at least with regard to the specific question of the nuke.  I couldn't do it, even if I had the resources, but if I could, I wouldn't live long enough to finish even if my neighbors didn't kill me first.  If you think that the data on the Interent is enough, I'd like to see you try it.  Only a few people alive today have been able to even sustain a chain reaction entirely based upon what data they could aquire outside of a nuclear physics program, and all of them are exceptional.  Search for the "nuclear boy scout" as an example, and he couldn't have made an actual nuclear bomb.  A dirty bomb, maybe.  But he wasn't crazy, and he exceeded his lifetime exposure limit despite his precausions.  A catastrophic, super-critical chain reaction is incrediblely difficult to produce, requiring the purest of materials, and nearly impossible to reproduce on a small scale without significant tale-tell emissions detectable from orbit.  Iran is a nation state with dozens of nuclear engineers on payroll, and they can't even manage to refine the materials given a decade.  How much success do you expect a single nutter to have?


Yes.

Can someone please update the Mac client to include native wallet.dat encryption?  I'm hanging in limbo here, and I don't have the skillset to do it.