Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[octaft]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

[octaft]

Exactly, thats the point. People do have the same kinds of weapons as your gangs, so everywhere a gang would form, a counter-gang would form, and the winning gang would surely be angry at the losing gang (especially if fatalities occurred), and the losing gang would flee to a surrounding area (or get killed off). Once they flee to a surrounding area, they will pick what they think is the winning gang there, and try to join it, resulting in each area being run by 1 gang constantly in fear of being taken over by its counter-gang (who they will naturally call "criminals") and surrounding gangs who have allied with "criminals."

And then the winning gangs become governments and we're back to square 1. The problem here is human nature: Humans like to form teams, and the winning team tends to punish the losing team, who then wishes to get revenge.

Decentralized violence begets more violence, and violence begets centralization. The only way of avoiding centralization is either reducing it just enough so that no violence breaks out,  but government is still sufficiently small, or by somehow getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with a system to prevent violence hands down.

Agreed. You cannot fight the natural inclinations of humans, you have to work around them.

[billyjoeallen]

Various public goods and interests are protected through democratic processes - which also requires money (likely taxes, unless we come up with some other means to accomplish the same).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

[billyjoeallen]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.

[octaft]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.

One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.

Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.

[JayJuanGee]

Various public goods and interests are protected through democratic processes - which also requires money (likely taxes, unless we come up with some other means to accomplish the same).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract

That is all fine and dandy that you are attempting to be more specific with a proposed direction that could be applied - assurances contracts.  So I appreciate your efforts in that direction.   NONETHELESS, I remain a little bit unclear about how these assurance contracts may work in various applications in the real world - apart from your fantasy world - such as in a city or a county or a state or a nation. 

Definitely, I am NOT opposed to potentially innovative and creative avenues to establish new social arrangements - that may even be beyond our current  thinking about societal arrangements.   I will caution you that ideas to throw out the current governmental arrangements (including taxes) - prior to testing out new arrangements would be very problematic and negatively impactful to a lot of people.  So I would NOT advise jumping into any pie in the sky arrangement without some data about how it plays out in the real world.

So my question to you is whether you know of any examples in which these assurance contracts have been applied in the real world  (NOT just hypothetical)... the larger the scale of the application the better - such as a city of 50,000 people or even better a metropolitan area of several million people - however, any example may be useful towards their consideration and how they play out in real world application.

If you do NOT have any examples of application, then you are really talking pie in the sky that is MUCH TOO premature for serious consideration in today's world and even in our conversation here.... Then I would suggest that it would be good to work towards achieving application of some of these ideas in order that we can talk realistically.. and NOT just in fantasy... and  we can compare and contrast how these hypothetical concepts play out.

[Yololintian]

Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?

[billyjoeallen]

All these people that say that they like charity fail to take into account one simple fact: The US Government has to be about the single most inefficient charitable organization in the history of existence.

Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.

This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.

Government borrowing is stealing. The loans come with promises to repay by taxing future generations. Talk about taxation without representation. Borrowing is popular because children don't vote.

It seems that you are missing some essential elements in your quick rendition of the facts and the ramifications of borrowing or printing.

In essence what has happened since about the 1980s is that the US Government has increasingly let the rich off the hook.. by decreasing and decreasing taxes... .accordingly, instead of taxing them, the government borrows from them... which is really a bunch of bullshit.

Certainly, many of us here agree that there are a lot of messed up aspects in the current arrangement and how our tax money is being used.  Also, regular people are having to bear more and more of the burdens of failure to tax the rich.

It's not an issue of rich vs. the poor. It's an issue of people who use and threaten violence to get what they want and people who don't. There is less wealth disparity in societies with less coercion. 

[JayJuanGee]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.

One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.

Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.

Octaft: 

I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits.  I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.   

Billyjoeallen is espousing ideas very similar to a lot of libertarians in their various views of government.  They have NO meaningful solutions, and want to shoot first and ask questions later - which is likely going to really screw things up for a lot of people.  There are these various goals that may be good in their hypothetical frame to allow for more individual freedom and autonomy.  And, I share some of those values; however, I remain fairly confident that we do NOT achieve them by running rough shod over the role and contributions of government. 

For example, there were a lot of libertarians who thought that it was so wonderful to have the USA government shut down for several weeks to attempt to prove some kind of point about NO need for government.  And, really, that government shut down was one of the stupidest gambles that could have lead to much worse catastrophes than what had occurred.... it was like reckless disregard for a variety of impacts.     My main point here is that I have NO problem with vision and attempting to accomplish meaningful changes to society and even getting rid of various aspects of government - especially if there are potential substitute institutions that could be implemented.  However, I tend to suffer from a fairly high level of irritation when some of these anti-government or less government ideologies strive towards dismantling without having any real meaningful plan(s) or visions that encompass values beyond their own small circle(s).

[Vigil]

The main problem with ancap is that there's nothing preventing a violent gang (a new government if you will) from forming, because everyone else is being so peaceful, and if everyone else stops being peaceful, then it it isn't ancap any more - its just regular anarchy.

Ancap will only work if there is some force to stop people from conducting acts of violence, preferably some force that isn't corruptible. So, until we have open-source peacemaking enforcement droids no such utopia can exist.

Seriously? If you are going to comment about what will and won't work with some idea/concept then at least take the time to read-up on the subject. This has been refuted repeatedly in ancap theory/philosophy. You obviously don't understand ancap.

[threecats]

Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?

http://hypron.net/bitcoinwisdom.html

[JayJuanGee]

All these people that say that they like charity fail to take into account one simple fact: The US Government has to be about the single most inefficient charitable organization in the history of existence.

Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.

This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.

Government borrowing is stealing. The loans come with promises to repay by taxing future generations. Talk about taxation without representation. Borrowing is popular because children don't vote.

It seems that you are missing some essential elements in your quick rendition of the facts and the ramifications of borrowing or printing.

In essence what has happened since about the 1980s is that the US Government has increasingly let the rich off the hook.. by decreasing and decreasing taxes... .accordingly, instead of taxing them, the government borrows from them... which is really a bunch of bullshit.

Certainly, many of us here agree that there are a lot of messed up aspects in the current arrangement and how our tax money is being used.  Also, regular people are having to bear more and more of the burdens of failure to tax the rich.

It's not an issue of rich vs. the poor. It's an issue of people who use and threaten violence to get what they want and people who don't. There is less wealth disparity in societies with less coercion. 

Wealth disparities have more to do with regulating and taxing the rich and the companies... rather than questions about coercion... You are really myopic and misplaced in your thinking if you are wanting to view the world through levels of coercion.. and then in the end your conclusions do NOT even seem to correlate with reality.... they are pure speculation with what appears to be your own definition(s) about what constitutes coercion.

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Yololintian]

Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?

http://hypron.net/bitcoinwisdom.html

Thanks

[octaft]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.

One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.

Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.

Octaft: 

I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits.  I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.   

Nah, I gave him just the right amount of credit. He did indeed say it was about the money. It doesn't make me agree with him, but I am acknowledging that he did mention that the money was the most important part to him.

[surfer43]

Up or down?

[billyjoeallen]

So my question to you is whether you know of any examples in which these assurance contracts have been applied in the real world  (NOT just hypothetical).

https://www.kickstarter.com/

[billyjoeallen]

oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?

so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.

And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.

The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.

The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.

One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.

Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.

Octaft: 

I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits.  I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.   

Nah, I gave him just the right amount of credit. He did indeed say it was about the money. It doesn't make me agree with him, but I am acknowledging that he did mention that the money was the most important part to him.

The NonAgression Principle is the most important thing to me, but if you have a differing view on what constitutes legitimate property, then you could draw the conclusion that it's about the money.

[JayJuanGee]

So my question to you is whether you know of any examples in which these assurance contracts have been applied in the real world  (NOT just hypothetical).

https://www.kickstarter.com/

Like I suggested, you have NO examples.  Let's discuss again in 2-5 years or however long it takes to run a few pilot sessions of these assurance contract scenarios.  Hopefully, when we discuss NEXT time, you will be able to provide examples of actual public entities, such as cities, counties, states or nations that have implemented these kinds of arrangements in their treatment of various public goods, benefits and/or services or at least run assurances contracts through their measures.