You haven't written to the crashed drive yet have you?

Do you have a property right in your car/truck/motorcycle/boat (assuming USA)? Of course you do. Is it a supreme property right? Absolutely not (IMO). If you had a supreme (maybe superior is better word) property right in those items you would not be paying a registration fee. Superior/supreme/sovereign property rights owes no due to another.

This is likely to be debatable, but in California (I'm pretty sure all other states also) look at the title of a vehicle you believe to "own" (the pink slip) and see if you have the possession of title to your vehicle. I am pretty sure you don't have possession of title to your vehicle and if you don't you don't own it. It makes no difference whether you are paying for it to a loan company or whether it is completely paid off, I believe you still don't own it. I have only known of a small handful of folks who actually own their vehicle and possess title.

That is the difference I was meaning when I referred to supreme property rights.

+1

What causes you to believe that we have to use their currency? In my research I have never found any definitive evidence that would cause me to believe I have to use a particular currency or that I can't use another currency.

If you mean that we have to use their currency to pay taxes (or rent/fee) for the use of their currency, that makes absolute sense to me and we should have to pay taxes in the currency they demand. They don't want tax paid with chickens or carrots. The property owner dictates/regulates the terms of the use of their property. Use of the property of another is always subject to the terms of the property owner.

If when I walk to the store I find that if I can shortcut through my neighbors yard to save 10 minutes and I ask him if I can walk through his yard and he allows/permits/licenses me to do so it doesn't change the owner of the yard. I have been given a privilege/benefit or temporary right to trespass on his yard without penalty. If he one day tells me that I can no longer walk through his yard on Tuesdays and Thursdays then my privilege/benefit has been regulated. He has that absolute right to do so. If he further states that I must drop a carrot by his back door as I pass on all other days but Tue/Thur then my option is to either not cross his yard or to drop a carrot for him. If I drop a chicken by his back door instead one day I have violated our agreement no matter if I believe he may want a chicken more than a carrot.

IMO property rights are very important if not the most important right one can possess and are a foundation to societal interaction both with individual men and women as well as with governments and other entities.

Do you mean better responses than what is here?

I don't know...is it my top? Shouldn't we ask the question of where did the wood to carve the top come from? And where did the something I traded you come from? It is my belief that if we both have supreme property rights to our respective items that yes it indeed would be my top and my something I traded to you would be yours.

What did we trade with our employer for FRNs? Our labor/skill? Do we have supreme property rights in our labor/skill? Where did our employer get those FRNs and what did he/she/they trade to get them? Did he/she/they have supreme property rights in what they traded?

When I refer to supreme property rights I mean that there is no other person/entity that has a right or interest attached to it. There is no person/entity that you need to ask to do what you wish with that property. There are many things that we all consider to have supreme property rights of such as our laptop, hair brush, microwave, etc....but do we really?

There is a better term than supreme property rights, it is slipping my mind at the moment.

I won't argue that we do or we don't ultimately own supremely the things we purchase with FRNs or via the FR system. I do encourage the thought and contemplation of such however. Research, education and understanding never hurts anyone.

And also what is promised seems moot to me today as the promise itself has value placed on it. If a promise was worth nothing than few investors would be buying CDOs and Mortgage Notes...granted the asset has value as well, but investors dont really want assets do they?

Today it is more FRNs. It used to be that notes/certificates were redeemable in silver/gold. That is no longer, but look at some old notes. The promise is printed directly on the dollar/note.

Try taking a FRN to a bank or even a FR district bank and all you will get in return is more FRNs. I recall reading this in the US Code. I am mobile ATM and can't cite the section.

IANAL.

Yes, the alternative is disturbing. I don't claim that this understanding is correct/valid, but it is food for thought. Contemplate also property rights and ownership related to IOUs and how that may equate use of FRNs. FRNs are simply IOUs (Notes/Promises to pay) and they have have signatues as evidence of such...more food for thought.

If you are in the USA (and most other countries), whose money is it when you work for an employer and receive FRNs or the equivalent checkbook money in exchange for your labor? Most people believe it is their money. But literally, I mean LITERALLY whose money is it? Who literally owns the money and who has supreme property rights in that money? If you do not own the money yourself don't you feel it is right and just to pay a tax or rental fee for use of someone else's property?

Ahh, I got it now. Thanks!

I believe he is absolutely correct. But not for the reason he and you debated.

Glancing at your photo, I don't see how that could possibly be accurate unless I am misunderstanding what C9 (Total BTC generated) means and what value you are referring to in C10.

+1 for BitcoinExchange for successful transaction. Thank you!

Do you have a deadline when you need this done by? Is there a character count limit? I have written private contracts for my own use when contracting with business/individuals. It may be able to be massaged to work for BTC employment transactions.

If interested PM me and I can dig up a recent one to share with you.

But how would other users know whether a minus is unjust? I don't see that the plus/minus is related to any particular post/activity/transaction. If it was then it would seem it could balance itself out as some may find a post useful and others not. From what I see it is applied to the member and I believe new users will not necessarily understand right away its purpose.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for a rating system. I think it is extremely useful for new and old members both. I just worry that it will be abused the way it operates at the moment.

If instead of the title "Reputation:" it was listed as "Helpful:" or something similar I would feel a little more at ease.

This is exactly what my concern was in my post in similar Meta thread:


And I guess I got a smite for that...or any of my other 91 posts, or for any random reason. Is this really the way this is supposed to work? Although some may not give much importance to the applaud/smite, especially those who have got to know each other here for a while, new users could have hesitation about interacting and/or transacting with smitten members.

I realize it's purpose is not necessarily transaction rating, but if a new user or any user wants to conduct a transaction with someone on the forum the first thing (I suspect) that may cause trust issues is if the person has smites...which can come from anywhere.

I hope it is just that I don't understand how the applaud/smite works.

sudo aticonfig --initial -f --adapter=all

I can imagine that smite will get out of hand. I would much prefer an applaud feature only, although I could see how that could be abused as well. Alternately and maybe better yet, if the applaud/smite feature only becomes available for ~Jr/Full Member levels or better....does it already work this way? I don't have an alternate account to try it.

No standing (damages) and probable lack of evidence secondary. IANAL

Prove it! We don't believe you.