Ignore him; he just wants a pat on the back for his "high-IQ". Also avoid self-moderated threads unless you trust the thread starter.
I was quite up for a sensible chat to be honest, and i posed nothing but valid questions….Considering that I thought the site was full of "free thinkers" i was kind of shocked to have my opinion remove because it didn't fit the status-quo! Yes, there are quite a few of them here! You wouldn't expect it on a bitcoin forum, but they're still around. Don't worry, most of us are very open to debate  You'll spot the odd ones out quickly. |
|
|
|
So you will allow female genital mutilation. I assume the same logic applies to honour killings, bride burning and the like.
If that is what anarchy requires, then I don't see it ever "working."
False. I will not allow my child to have her genitals mutilated. That's the point; it requires a rational society, of which you'd find no place if you will not even acknowledge when you're wrong. |
|
|
|
|
Ignore him; he just wants a pat on the back for his "high-IQ". Also avoid self-moderated threads unless you trust the thread starter.
|
|
|
|
But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.
No, too inefficient. How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon? That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far. You have no morality. Female genital mutilation is an abomination. The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend. You have no right to force your morals on another. I do. So do you. Bzzt, wrong. You don't know how this "rights" thing works, do you? Mike if you are editting my replies, the done thing is to write "...snip..." where you cut. Is the price of anarchy is that we have to allow female genital mutilation? Of course not; the reason why I cut off the rest of your reply is because the first two sentences is where you made an error. Here's how rights work: you say, "I want the right to enforce my beliefs on you; I will extend this right to you if you extend this right to me." Then I will either say, "Okay, this sounds reasonable, you can enforce your beliefs on me if you let me enforce my beliefs on you", or I will say, "No, sorry, I'd rather you didn't enforce your beliefs on me, therefore I will not enforce my beliefs on you." Now, when you say, "I have the right to force my morals on another. You also have this right," you've assumed a position of authority in which I have no say in whether or not you or I have this right. This is not how a right works; you don't simply get to decide what rights everyone will have. About female genital mutilation: you've assumed that you have the right to allow or disallow this. People are perfectly capable of making these decisions; the point isn't to force people not to with the threat of violence, the point is to enlighten people with knowledge so they can make the right decision. This is the difference between you, the authoritarian, and me, the libertarian. I'm sorry, but I don't like your system at all; it does not encourage intelligence or liberty, it only encourages fear and obedience. |
|
|
|
But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.
No, too inefficient. How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon? That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far. You have no morality. Female genital mutilation is an abomination. The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend. You have no right to force your morals on another. I do. So do you. Bzzt, wrong. You don't know how this "rights" thing works, do you? |
|
|
|
|
I don't like this one much; democratic socialism on the bottom half? Give me a break.
It gets worse: statism is its own little bubble, as if everything on the top half and most of the bottom doesn't involve the state. Why is anarchism listed on the right--everyone sees anarchism as a leftist, if not center, political philosophy, considering it's against the hierarchical make up of modern business, making it look much closer to socialism than anything. And what on earth is ultra-anarchism?
I wouldn't trust this one, honestly; whoever made it doesn't seem to quite understand these concepts, and I'll assume it was a liberal since he placed himself in the dead center, thus making himself the true central political philosophy, which would explain why everything else looks as though we've placed the earth at the center of the solar system with the sun and everything else flying in circles within circles.
|
|
|
|
But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.
No, too inefficient. How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon? That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far. You have no morality. Female genital mutilation is an abomination. The idea that the local majority can hire their own police force that will allow it disgusts me. You're making an assumption; I don't like it either, but morality is subjective, friend. You have no right to force your morals on another. |
|
|
|
But I prefer a national set of laws that reflects my values.
No, too inefficient. How about a local set of laws you and your peers and their businesses all agree upon? That way you're not getting in the way of people you've never met before, nor will stupid laws like "ban alcohol" or "cut off a lady's clitter" stretch very far. |
|
|
|
Russell Brand seems to be a naive statist-socialist though ("distribute the wealth!").
also he doesn't like or understand Bitcoin and likened it to tulips afai remember.
This is also the impression I got; he's the type of fella who wants to take action without knowing what that action would be. Watch him start a revolution and go full circle to exactly where we were, just with different people on top  Now, if he was calling for a revolution of rationalism, then I'd be all ears. This sort of message is just fluffy hippie nonsense, devoid of any helpful knowledge and keeps those who have been vulnerable to rule for so, i.e. the irrational violence-fearing sheep, still vulnerable to rule. |
|
|
|
A centrally-issued currency does not need to be either P2P- or cyptography-based, because you've already assumed the counterparty risk of central control that P2P or crypto cannot solve.
Does not need to be? Well, p2p cryptocurrencies are just about the best form of digital cash available. Centralized or not, why make it inferior? I agree; why make it inferior with centralization? |
|
|
|
As far as anarchy goes, though, I do see a new form of order coming from it in the sense of people being held accountable. I think that's what people think of when they say there should be rules, because if someone does something wrong, they must be held accountable somehow. The way I imagine anarchy would be a society that creates a form of accountability and order without the need of what we know as a government, which we know is a group of people who are placed in some moral echelon above everybody else (legal monopoly over force, etc, etc).
It may look very appealing indeed at first sight, but there're still a lot of hard questions, especially the questions regarding who will keep people accountable for their alleged wrongdoings ("they must be held accountable somehow"), who will in practice set the rules ("they say there should be rules") and so forth and so on... You will always end up facing the necessity of giving priviliges/power to one group of people before/over another. This will not be anarchy, anarchy in its true form means "each for himself and devil take the hindmost", which is self-destructive and thus not viable in any human society...  False; the entire point of anarchism is to completely decentralize lawmakers. You, and the people you're participating life with, lay down the laws you agree upon, usually involving "don't kill, don't steal, don't rape" et al following the non-aggression principle, and if someone steps out of line, they are punished by the people who have agreed to instill those same punishments upon themselves if they were to break these laws. Anarchism is clearly defined: non-hierarchical relationships in government and business. At any point in time that you present a scenario within anarchism that requires a ruling class and a ruled class, follow these steps: 1. Stop 2. Take a breath 3. Discard the idea It will save you and I a lot of time. |
|
|
|
1. that still doesn't lead anyone with knowledge to think that BTC will be the standard world currency. of course people are spending their BTC, but if the world economy is doing well.. people will have to invest. and BTC's inherent deflationary nature means that there'd be less people willing to invest; so how could people switch over to BTC as the standard currency?
2. how does this really prove anything? that's just a broad statement.
I have never implied BTC will be the standard world currency; for that matter, why on earth would anyone want this? All I'm pointing out is that there is nothing about bitcoin's deflationary nature that leads to negative effects; it's volatility is what is preventing it from becoming a currency, but a money that gradually makes its holders richer encourages saving; the second point is extremely important to understand, as you seem to be under the impression that the market must always be debt-based, i.e. we must always continue to spend, spend, spend in order to keep the economy flowing. This isn't true; if it turns out that people prefer to save their wealth than spend it, the economy adapts to this shift, instead of imploding or whatever other dangerous things Keynesians put forth. |
|
|
|
being a depreciating asset means people are not willing to spend their money, and instead hoard it.. why? because it keeps increasing in value. for a currency to be a true one, it needs to encourage free spending.
Understand two things: 1. Nobody hordes till they die (and if they do, they probably needed to die) 2. The market adapts because people adapt There is nothing stopping you from spending Bitcoin, except in the case of things you really don't want or need which sounds like more of a solution to me than anything. Is Bitcoin bad for a debt-based economy? Absolutely! Does anyone really like our debt-based economy? Only the few who don't work for a living. this is what happened in rome when the empire decided to dilute their currency (they melted gold and mixed it with bronze, making the coins less pure). people, instead of spending their best assets, horded them and used the cheaper metals.while this didn't exactly cause their downfall, it was a stage that contributed to it.
thinking that BTC will become the main world currency one day is just a pipe dream.
You say that like it's a bad thing the Roman empire fell. |
|
|
|
|
Why does Bitcoin have to be the only currency you'll ever use?
|
|
|
|
|
Hey Walter, what are your thoughts on all these anarcho-X titles? Do you feel it complicates the theory?
|
|
|
|
I am believer but one thing bothers me after the last weeks crazy price increases. Two of bitcoins main selling points is ease of transfer from one party to another and low fees. It will be great for merchants and consumers etc, but the fact is that any1 who has spent bitcoin since its birth has lost money. They would have been better off holding on to them.
So in theory, you would imagine that more and more people will not spend bitcoin in the future and begin hoarding. This will drive up the price further for a time as supply runs dry (miners will hoard too of course).
So this leaves us only with digital gold with the only people buying are speculators and they too will become disillusioned as the promise of bitcoin taking on credit cards, cash, bank transfers western union fade.
Im sure this has been discussed many times here, but I had no good answer to a few doubters I ran into today
Also when they say bubble, responce ?
If you're serious about your questions, you wouldnt have posted here in Speculation section Second, this has been discussed to death. It was moved here by a mod |
|
|
|
Anybody tried Elder Scrolls Online? I have a beta key, but it only lasts a few days, so I'm not going to download the game. :-)
I haven't even heard of this one. I actually did. Big fan of the TES series, however TESO is developed by other devs, than the original series. Ick, the last thing we need is yet another MMO. Sounds like they're just trying to cash in on it, I'm not gonna bother. |
|
|
|
Probably not in this decade |
|
|
|
|
Can we TP this guy's house? We all know he was paid to write this article, nobody is this stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm gonna hold until I die; after all, what's the use in money if you can't take it with you to the afterlife?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
