Has the 'Bitcoin Experiment' changed your political or economic views at all?

[Rudd-O]

Your view of morality didn't state anything about girls randomly growing those things.

I didn't say she'd use a penis.
Safe for Work
NSFW (Don't say you weren't warned)

You, however, did say you would like to forcibly penetrate her.
You further said:

-> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.

Therefore, you stated that you would like to be forcibly penetrated. If this is not so, then you might want to retract your statement.

"Just for the sake of argument.  Just to see how it feels".

BAHAH.

[Rassah]

-> I want to rape girl.
-> Would I want them to do this to me?
-> Yup.

k.

(Just for the sake of argument).

If you want it done to you, then it's not rape. That there is wishing to force yourself on someone without their consent, and wishing they would force themselves on you with your consent. Please think things through before hitting Save.

[21after2]

To me, BitCoin is still very much in its infancy and has a lot of hurdles to jump over. My political views are unchanged despite my interest in the currency.

What I'm really paying attention to is BitCoin economics. Trying to see what kind of future the currency has.

[claire]

No. Free market capitalism has always rocked my world and made it whole. and even if it seems like trading money, it's more like trading goods for goods or services to me. Need potatoes? I'll trade you some eggs.

[ATC777]

No, Bitcoin has only confirmed my political and economic views. 

For years, I have been kicking and screaming for a viable competitive currency and a way for human beings to escape the bondage of central banks and transact freely in the new, digital world. Little did I know a ninja warrior flying the banner of Satoshi was fighting to make this dream a reality. When I first found out about Bitcoin I was a bit skeptical, and questioned whether or not it was a legitimate currency or a shady underground market. But my skepticism quickly waned as I learned more about it and joined the community. Now I am a Bitcoin crusader!

Down with the fiat machine!!! Down with the Fed!!!

[giszmo]

Getting more and more in touch with libertarian ideas I'm a bit scared as I don't see solutions for some things that I think you definitely need a state for.
Yesterday I saw a video of a libertarian who brought the example of selling his 4 years daughter into sex slavery to save her from starvation and of selling himself into slavery to pay a surgery for his daughter. If that is what libertarians dream of then I'm scared of bitcoin being the tool to force it upon the world. Yet I have some hope for the good in mankind so it will not come that far.

[ATC777]

Getting more and more in touch with libertarian ideas I'm a bit scared as I don't see solutions for some things that I think you definitely need a state for.
Yesterday I saw a video of a libertarian who brought the example of selling his 4 years daughter into sex slavery to save her from starvation and of selling himself into slavery to pay a surgery for his daughter. If that is what libertarians dream of then I'm scared of bitcoin being the tool to force it upon the world. Yet I have some hope for the good in mankind so it will not come that far.

Most of us are minarchists, not complete anarchists. I believe the function of the state is to supply a military, maintain law and order, et cetera. Sex slavery would be a human rights violation, thus illegal -- government would focus on stopping real crimes like this rather than arrest college kids smoking pot.

[myrkul]

Getting more and more in touch with libertarian ideas I'm a bit scared as I don't see solutions for some things that I think you definitely need a state for.
Yesterday I saw a video of a libertarian who brought the example of selling his 4 years daughter into sex slavery to save her from starvation and of selling himself into slavery to pay a surgery for his daughter. If that is what libertarians dream of then I'm scared of bitcoin being the tool to force it upon the world. Yet I have some hope for the good in mankind so it will not come that far.

Selling your daughter isn't something that you can do. The problem comes with a confusion in the meaning of the term "your" daughter. Yes, she is your daughter in the sense that the daughter/father relationship is pointed at you as opposed to any other male on the planet, but she is not yours in the same sense that the car in your driveway is, or in the same way that the driveway itself is. She's not your property, she's her own.

As for selling yourself into slavery to afford an operation, I believe they call that "employment" nowadays.

[Crypt_Current]

Getting more and more in touch with libertarian ideas I'm a bit scared as I don't see solutions for some things that I think you definitely need a state for.
Yesterday I saw a video of a libertarian who brought the example of selling his 4 years daughter into sex slavery to save her from starvation and of selling himself into slavery to pay a surgery for his daughter. If that is what libertarians dream of then I'm scared of bitcoin being the tool to force it upon the world. Yet I have some hope for the good in mankind so it will not come that far.

Selling your daughter isn't something that you can do. The problem comes with a confusion in the meaning of the term "your" daughter. Yes, she is your daughter in the sense that the daughter/father relationship is pointed at you as opposed to any other male on the planet, but she is not yours in the same sense that the car in your driveway is, or in the same way that the driveway itself is. She's not your property, she's her own.

So you're saying that the four-year-old sold herself of her own volition?  Was the father's responsibility eschewed because he does not own the four-year-old?

As for selling yourself into slavery to afford an operation, I believe they call that "employment" nowadays.

Libertarian Joe says "slavery == employment" ...

soooo...  Is sex slavery just employment in an environment of greater sexual harassment than usual?  Or, maybe just similar to the every day run-of-the-mill whoredom?

And, if slavery==employment, what is freedom?  Being a bum??

[myrkul]

Selling your daughter isn't something that you can do. The problem comes with a confusion in the meaning of the term "your" daughter. Yes, she is your daughter in the sense that the daughter/father relationship is pointed at you as opposed to any other male on the planet, but she is not yours in the same sense that the car in your driveway is, or in the same way that the driveway itself is. She's not your property, she's her own.

So you're saying that the four-year-old sold herself of her own volition?  Was the father's responsibility eschewed because he does not own the four-year-old?

You're assuming that the sale is legitimate. It's not, that's why I said, "Selling your daughter isn't something that you can do." not, "Only the daughter could sell herself." It's widely accepted that people under the age of 18 cannot contract. Since she cannot contract, she cannot sell herself, and the father doesn't own her, so he can't sell her either.

The father's responsibility is not based on ownership of the child. It is based on ownership of the actions which brought her into being. He did the deed, now he has to do the time.

As for selling yourself into slavery to afford an operation, I believe they call that "employment" nowadays.

Libertarian Joe says "slavery == employment" ...

soooo...  Is sex slavery just employment in an environment of greater sexual harassment than usual?  Or, maybe just similar to the every day run-of-the-mill whoredom?

I didn't say "slavery == employment" I said "selling ones self into slavery == employment" She didn't sell herself into slavery, did she? So, she's not employed, is she?

And, if slavery==employment, what is freedom?  Being a bum??

Self-employment/entrepreneurship.

[myrkul]

That you consider the concept that no person is endowed with the right to commit violence on another "weirdness" completely explains your misconceptions about AnCap and libertarianism in general.

[myrkul]

That you consider the concept that no person is endowed with the right to commit violence on another "weirdness" completely explains your misconceptions about AnCap and libertarianism in general.

Rights are ascribed by society -- by 'communities'. They do not exist outside of that context, and thus the NAP's claim "No-one has the right...." is nonsensical.

Tell me, does the Bill of Rights give rights, or list them?

[molecular]

And, if slavery==employment, what is freedom?  Being a bum??

Self-employment/entrepreneurship.

You can still be a tax-slave. So it's not necessarily freedom.

[molecular]

As with any written document, the act of reading it allows the thoughts encoded within it to be 'observed' by others. Thus the rights are created, not listed. As the ideas of those rights spread, so does the existence of those rights.

Sounds a bit like some sort of radical or fundamentalist constructivism.

[myrkul]

That you consider the concept that no person is endowed with the right to commit violence on another "weirdness" completely explains your misconceptions about AnCap and libertarianism in general.

Rights are ascribed by society -- by 'communities'. They do not exist outside of that context, and thus the NAP's claim "No-one has the right...." is nonsensical.

Tell me, does the Bill of Rights give rights, or list them?

As with any written document, the act of reading it allows the thoughts encoded within it to be 'observed' by others. Thus the rights are created, not listed. As the ideas of those rights spread, so does the existence of those rights.

OK, then:

When you read "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property," it removes that right, and the possibility of that right, from you. That statement destroys the right to aggress, just as the bill of rights creates the rights therein.

And, if slavery==employment, what is freedom?  Being a bum??

Self-employment/entrepreneurship.

You can still be a tax-slave. So it's not necessarily freedom.

Well, that's a good point, but within the context of the discussion, tax-slavery isn't a factor.

[myrkul]

As with any written document, the act of reading it allows the thoughts encoded within it to be 'observed' by others. Thus the rights are created, not listed. As the ideas of those rights spread, so does the existence of those rights.

Sounds a bit like some sort of radical or fundamentalist constructivism.

I thought it was quite a popular theory of the nature of the universe that things don't really exist until or unless they're being observed. That's not radical.

OK, then:

When you read "No person has the right to initiate the use of force, threat of force, or fraud upon another person or their property," it removes that right, and the possibility of that right, from you. That statement destroys the right to aggress, just as the bill of rights creates the rights therein.

No, it re-introduces the concept of rights, but applies a meaning that's different from the one I already adhere to. That creates a kind of conflict.

Yes, when someone holding a fallacious concept of reality runs up against something that contradicts it, this conflict always occurs.

Because you are still lost in peek-a-boo land, where things disappear if you're not looking at them, you'll run into a lot of this sort of cognitive dissonance. Especially when you try to navigate your living room in the dark.

[myrkul]

Myrkul -- got any actual arguments instead of Ad Hominems?

Telling you that you are wrong about your conceptions of reality is not an ad hominem. It might be uncomfortable, and therefore seem like a personal attack, but it is not you I am attacking, it is your incorrect world view.

[myrkul]

Myrkul -- got any actual arguments instead of Ad Hominems?

Telling you that you are wrong about your conceptions of reality is not an ad hominem.

Maybe not, but that's not what you did.

That's precisely what I did.

It might be uncomfortable, and therefore seem like a personal attack, but it is not you I am attacking, it is your incorrect world view.

It's an Ad Hominem because instead of discussing the topic at hand, i.e.: the conflict caused by competing definitions of the word 'rights', you were attacking my credibility based on my beliefs. Attacking the messenger and not the message -- that's exactly what an Ad Hominem is.

You admitted that you were experiencing cognitive dissonance: "it re-introduces the concept of rights, but applies a meaning that's different from the one I already adhere to. That creates a kind of conflict."

I explained why: "Because you are still lost in peek-a-boo land, where things disappear if you're not looking at them, you'll run into a lot of this sort of cognitive dissonance."

Your beliefs are the problem. I'm not attacking your credibility, I'm attacking those beliefs which cause your misconceptions.

Really, Myrkul. Can't you use logic and sound reasoning to defend against challenges to the N.A.P.? The very fact that there is disagreement, demonstrates that such a simplistic principle would be unworkable, and certainly not possible to apply universally.

We weren't discussing the NAP. we were discussing your world view - which, incidentally, causes a misconception in the definition of rights, in turn causing your understanding of the NAP to be flawed.

[Rassah]

• Education would be all private, resulting in an unfair class system where some people would get inferior treatment through no fault of their own.

Already the case in 1st world governments; poor inner-city kids and country kids have crappy schools, wealthy rural area kids have very well funded high quality schools.

• Healthcare -- same as above.

Ditto; free clinics, crappy insurance, and not checking issues until you have to go to the emergency room v.s. "Cadillac" insurance plans and personal healthcare concierge.

• Employment and contracts -- slavery is back! Oops, I meant "indentured servitude". Without governments getting in the way of free trade, people can be bought and sold, there's a free market for child prostitution, and owing a bad debt on a piece of paper apparently makes it all OK.

Social contracts, debts that can not be dismissed through bankruptcy (e.g. student loans), and the rest is straw man. Sure, you could buy a person in a society without government, just as you can in one with a government, but that person doesn't have to acknowledge your ownership of them, and likely no one else will, so if they leave or refuse to work for you, you're Sol. Just like it is in a society with a government.

• There is no coherent concept of 'justice'. It's loosely postulated that private justice would exist and somehow work along the lines of business arbitration. However, proponents of that nonsense seem unable to remove the issue of money and its corruptive effects from the equation.

Money is already a part of the equation in government run justice. The only difference is that this money is also used to help make unjust things legal. You can't make something unjust legal without government, so you're only left with justice and money.

• Before any issue ever reaches a (kangaroo) court, each person is burdened with the responsibility of being a judge, jury, and executioner, and perfectly rational behaviour is assumed and expected at all times. In extreme cases a misunderstanding could result in an alleged aggressor getting shot! Due to a complete lack of laws (apart from the NAP one-liner), there's no proper guidance on what constitutes aggression -- it's all hearsay and vigilantism.

That's how the legal system works now: before anything reaches a court, each person is required to go through negotiation, discovery, and be a judge and jury. Only when they fail are they allowed to take their case to court. Things like surprise evidence and witnesses that you see in the movies are extremely frowned upon. And just because you will likely get yourself shot if you found yourself in NAP society because you don't know how to behave yourself, doesn't mean everyone else will too.

• There's massive doublethink regarding the concept of 'community'. On the one hand, communities could exist as long as they abide by the NAP which is even more fundamental than any community in existence. On the other hand, the allowed communities would have no substance: all participation would fall into categories like "free trade among like-minded individuals", and voluntary participation. Due to 'self-ownership' and a rejection of competing claims on "the fruits of one's labour", communities -- as defined as "non-financial entities" -- would be impossible. A private two-party justice system would deny representation.

There is no difference between a NAP community and your local community. If you are friendly to your neighbors and expect them to be friendly to you, if you don't steal their stuff and expect them not to steal from you, if you borrow things from them and are willing to let them borrow from you, you are already practicing NAP. If, on the other hand, you currently live in a communist country, where the government owns everything, and you have and expectation that any of your neighbors are free to walk into your house and take anything of yours, and you can do the same, because everything is community owned, then I could see where you would be confused.