|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In order to get the maximum amount of activity points possible, you just need to post once per day on average. Skipping days is OK as long as you maintain the average.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RodeoX
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 3066
Merit: 1145
The revolution will be monetized!
|
 |
March 15, 2013, 05:00:44 PM |
|
I did not know this.  If I were a resident of one of those states I would publicly break the law. I may get a fine or something, but it would be worth watching a politician go down in flames as he/she tries to defend that law on TV. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
March 15, 2013, 06:03:49 PM |
|
If I create a currency, and use it regularly in my household between residents in my household, and I agree to let you stay in my household, and let you use my currency, and i let you own stuff in my household at my discretion, and I charge you a fee based on transactions you engage in using my currency in my household, is that theft?
That's basically what governments do.
What if bitcoin charged you a fee for engaging in transactions using bitcoins? Is that theft?
What was stated when you moved in was that the rules can change. Take it or leave it. If you were born in my household, play by my rules or leave. Clear enough? Even if I'm in your household, I still have to play by the rules set up by government. Therefore, according to your logic, you have no household. Everything belongs to the government. And if you are unlucky enough to be a US citizen, you belong to your government too, 'cause you have to pay your taxes anywhere you go. Once more. You have no property. You yourself are a property. Are you OK with this? Are you here to defend this system? You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
March 15, 2013, 06:07:57 PM |
|
Most of you in this thread suffer from a delusional sense that you are being oppressed by a system that works quite well, instead of a common sense view which acknowledges the utility of it.
'Tis true that those who have it quite well will find something to complain about.
|
|
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2422
Merit: 2112
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:05:47 PM |
|
Most of you in this thread suffer from a delusional sense that you are being oppressed by a system that works quite well, instead of a common sense view which acknowledges the utility of it.
'Tis true that those who have it quite well will find something to complain about.
I consider that a toolbox containing several screwdrivers, a hammer and wrenches in different sizes has a lot of utility. Yet no one is forcing one into my hands and making me pay for it. I deny your utility anyway. Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does. |
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:49:37 PM |
|
Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does.
I'll take that over a system which is fueled solely by the immediate desires of those who don't understand or acknowledge the long term effects. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:54:38 PM |
|
Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does.
I'll take that over a system which is fueled solely by the immediate desires of those who don't understand or acknowledge the long term effects. Sounds like a problem with the people, and not the system... One solved fairly easily with education, and which is just as prevalent in a top-down hierarchical model, and made much worse in such a system. |
|
|
|
|
Fuzzy
|
|
March 15, 2013, 07:57:55 PM |
|
Man, this thread is deep.
|
|
|
|
|
|
coqui33
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:14:17 PM |
|
The original question reminds me of the fact that never in history has treason against any government ever succeeded.
To learn why this is so, ask Sir. John Harington (1561-1612).
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:20:12 PM |
|
The original question reminds me of the fact that never in history has treason against any government ever succeeded.
To learn why this is so, ask Sir. John Harington (1561-1612).
To save others the search, this is the Sir John to which he was referring. (There are several, all contemporaries, so it can be confusing.) |
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2422
Merit: 2112
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:23:11 PM |
|
Government is almost universally inept and inefficient in everything it does.
I'll take that over a system which is fueled solely by the immediate desires of those who don't understand or acknowledge the long term effects. You sound like those are two different things... |
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
justusranvier
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1400
Merit: 1009
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:27:13 PM |
|
You sound like those are two different things... Most apologists for the State do that. They talk about how horrible it would be to not have one by describing the worst characteristics of the State. |
|
|
|
|
Raoul Duke
aka psy
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1358
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:50:57 PM |
|
When I was born noone asked me if I was OK with all the bullshit rules.
Even if they did, according to their own bullshit rules I couldn't "legally" say yes or no.
Should I sue my parents?
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 15, 2013, 08:59:00 PM |
|
Should I sue my parents?
Would be an interesting precedent, if you did. |
|
|
|
Richy_T
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2422
Merit: 2112
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
March 15, 2013, 09:08:38 PM |
|
No point. You'd only get paid in funny money.
|
1RichyTrEwPYjZSeAYxeiFBNnKC9UjC5k
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
March 15, 2013, 09:20:16 PM |
|
No point. You'd only get paid in funny money.
Hey, it still spends, for now. |
|
|
|
|
Fuzzy
|
|
March 15, 2013, 09:23:57 PM |
|
Is anyone here perfectly happy with their government, and paying them taxes (even if it's through withholding), and if so, what country are you from?
|
|
|
|
|
|
optimator
|
|
March 15, 2013, 10:21:50 PM |
|
Isn't it the Brazilian government that tried privatizing water? It made it illegal to even collect rainwater and drink it. If claiming the rain as yours to sell is not stealing, I don't know what is.
It seems funny at first, but living in a desert environment water rights are literally fighting words. I believe the state was Utah that just made it legal to collect a limited amount of rain water for personal use. Other example are: I'll refrain from saying "anytime they want to", but history has shown the frailness of "laws" when confronted with "a really good reason" Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
MonadTran
|
|
March 16, 2013, 02:24:15 AM |
|
You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.
Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults? It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree. Now, you are saying that by analogy, government can set up any rules on the territory it is controlling, and on its citizens anywhere in the world. By analogy, I assume that government has property rights on everything that's on its territory, and on its citizens. The main argument in your analogy is related to private property. You cannot omit this argument when transferring your reasoning from analogy to the thing you are analogizing to. Isomorphism between analogy and what is being analogized to cannot include just the conclusions, it has to include the initial axioms and logical connections as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
March 16, 2013, 04:47:39 AM |
|
You win bonehead of the year award. Talk about totally missing the point. The household is an analogy. When using analogies, the analogue is something which exists instead of the that which it is analogizing to.
Care to reread my reply instead of throwing insults? It's a question of how you understand property rights. You are saying, you have property rights in your household, and, therefore, you can set up any rules that you like. I agree. If you agree that you can do anything you want on what you clearly demarcate and defend as your property in a universe where no higher authority has domain over your little corner of the world, then you implicitly agree that in our universe on Earth, a country can do anything it wants on a territory which it clearly demarcates and defends as its own and no higher authority has domain over that nation, then we're on the same page. Congratulations if you understand that. And be glad that in a world which offers many nations to choose from, some are pretty damn good. So good, in fact, that you would be a fool to complain and wish for something significantly different, as others here in this forum do indeed do. For example, some dimwitted nitwits in these forums start drooling at the notion of life on oil rigs, or life living in rubber tubes on floating icebergs. Imagine the freedoms afforded by such terrific locales! What's next? Life on some mind numbingly cold and lonely rock in the Kuiper Belt? Or how about some ice rock in the Oort Cloud? Bottom line - you don't know how good you actually have it. |
|
|
|
|
|
