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

[Richy_T]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

Forget it, JJG's makes up his own definitions to rationalize his desire to believe he supports freedom against his desire to control others.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, all that good stuff.

[Richy_T]

Seriosly, fuck this geofencing shit! Why do I need to bother with proxies and shit? I hope those media companies die in a fire. Fuck! Even if I lived there, I would not see any of their adverts, because that shit is blocked. Not cool, man.

It's in the BBC's charter. Which was created by the government.

[Richy_T]

Looking this chart from goldman, I’m sure someone is going to try this, the question is why would the world adopt it, it can't be trust in the institution

No private institution will be able to resist controlling the currency, probably by tying it to the dollar. Ask Norman Lamont how that kind of thing goes (though it seemed to work for the Chinese).

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[Zapffe]

I know a guy, who knows a guy whose sister made a sandwich today... very bullish...

Reading this thread is like watching this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6lutNECOZFw

http://wonkette.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/diagnosis-butthurt-1-250x279.jpg

wtf.. you actually posted that you got butthurt by my post?!

Oh, yeah, it's me who is butthurt here 

No sh*t, Sherlock

[JayJuanGee]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation.  If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes.  What country are you from?   You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

[podyx]

No sh*t, Sherlock

[dreamspark]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation.  If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes.  What country are you from?   You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

He literally just told you why being part of a community is coercion, what dont you understand...

[JayJuanGee]

To expand more on the roads thing with a specific example: I work in a place called Cool Springs which is a rapidly growing (yay low taxes) area in middle-Tennessee. It has grown so quickly that the road structure is struggling. This year, Tennessee will spend billions of taxpayers money to upgrade the road structure to accommodate those people (including me). In the meantime, tens of thousands of people are spending a significant chunk of time sitting in traffic everyday leading to untold loss of productivity and/or leisure time and burning significant fuel doing nothing.

And yet... the growth in this area is mostly white-collar. The huge proportion of these people could probably work from home (something you would understand, Keyser). Vast amounts of time and resources could be saved. Yet there is no incentive to do so because those taxes are going to be taken and the roads built regardless. If it was laid out in front of people as a straight choice, maybe things would work out differently. Of course, maybe they wouldn't. But that's kind of the point, to let the market decide. Who knows, maybe we'd even have more roads, better roads. Maybe if you wanted to head to New York from here (or wherever you are) and you had a sufficiently equipped vehicle, you could hop on a 180mph toll road and be there in no time. The point is that the one-size-fits-all of government action leads to inefficient solutions.

The more you explain, the more we should be able to recognize how detached you are from reality. 

Roads are NOT going to be built in any kind of efficient way without public funding.  Surely, there may be better ways to go about accomplishing the same objectives, but roads are within the community desires about the solution.  If you want another solution, besides roads, you have to convince the community to move in that direction.  In your rural Tennessee example, that is converting to a less rural existence, the community seems to have decided that it wants more roads.... b/c they see that as the solution to the issue of having more people in the area.

[JayJuanGee]

The poor are better off under system B but I suspect this is unacceptable to you because helping the poor is less important to you than forcing everyone to conform to your values.

It's like the kid who when given a treat is upset because their sibling got a bigger treat. People need to look to themselves, not others. It's the "If I can't have you, nobody can" mentality.

Here's another example of near incomprehesiveness, describing a conclusion and then putting a label on some created scenario that makes little to no sense - b/c both the previous arrived conclusion and the comment regarding the conclusion are quite separated from reality.

Here also is an example in which the context should have NOT been snipped... b/c a new reader is NOT going to understand the conclusion or the comment b/c too much of the context has been snipped.

[Richy_T]

Roads are NOT going to be built in any kind of efficient way without public funding.  Surely, there may be better ways to go about accomplishing the same objectives, but roads are within the community desires about the solution.  If you want another solution, besides roads, you have to convince the community to move in that direction.  In your rural Tennessee example, that is converting to a less rural existence, the community seems to have decided that it wants more roads.... b/c they see that as the solution to the issue of having more people in the area.

Where did you get "rural" from? Could you stick to what's written? It's a two lane interstate that takes 20 minutes to go 5 miles for mostly unnecessary commutes. There's your central planning.

[Richy_T]

Here also is an example in which the context should have NOT been snipped... b/c a new reader is NOT going to understand the conclusion or the comment b/c too much of the context has been snipped.

New readers can click on the "Quote from" link if they want more context. In the old days, people used threaded newsreaders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Trimming_and_reformatting

[seriouscoin]

anyone missed clarkmoody?

Why is it not using other exchanges data?

I like clarkmoody alot more than bitwisdom

[JayJuanGee]

  Let's say for example, there is a decision by the libertarians (and maybe the convince the rest of us) to progress to a new and "better" society that does NOT have roads, there would be a lot of resistance in segments of society to those kinds of ideas and plans... so then we end up in a state of serious disagreement and tension b/c the bright ideas of libertarians want to progress to a "more advanced" state of affairs - a world without roads.  GO figure!!!!

WTF JJG? You keep assigning these ambitions to others when that is not the case. Libertarians would decouple the roads from government and allow the system to develop in a natural and organic manner. My point with the roads is that what we would have *now* if this had happened a long time ago not that we magically jump from setup A to setup B. That is what collectivists do with their grand solutions and five-year-plans.

Yes... it may be a little unfair for me to attribute fuzzy logic to all libertarians - b/c certainly, some of the libertarian ideas are decent ones.

I am NOT opposed to getting value from ideas that can make us move in a better direction to improve personal liberties and even to improve voluntariness under current systems, to the extent those kinds of fixes are feasible.

  A problem, however, in this discussion is that the vision of no government or little government gets so preoccupied with criticizing government but comes up with few if any realistic solutions to address public concerns and the roads example is a good one, especially if we are going to describe the proposed solutions systematically. 

I really do NOT understand the point of arguing about our supposedly being in a better position (possibly) if we did NOT have roads.  That makes very little sense (even if it were true).   Currently we have roads, and that is our starting point.. NOT some hypothetical fantasy land world without roads, and that life without roads may be more of a Richy_T argument rather than attributable to other libertarians.   

Anyhow, I do NOT mean to insult anyone (including you Richy_T) with any guilt by association type assertions; however, I had been using some of the labels, such as attributing certain kinds of ideas to libertarians) to simplify to some extent...  b/c there is a common theme that seems to be, but I also find that labels do NOT always quite capture various nuances in what is being proposed (apart from the less government angle)

[ChartBuddy]

Explanation

[JayJuanGee]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

Forget it, JJG's makes up his own definitions to rationalize his desire to believe he supports freedom against his desire to control others.

War is peace, freedom is slavery, all that good stuff.

It is NOT about making things up. 

We have already seen several times that terms are thrown out with some baggage or some meaning that differs from one side to another.  If we remain unclear about our terms, then we are going to have more difficulties communicating our ideas.  Anyhow mandatory and coercion are NOT the same even though they are similar concepts, and I explained to some extent, the context for my distinguishing mandatory and coercion. 

[JayJuanGee]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation.  If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes.  What country are you from?   You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

He literally just told you why being part of a community is coercion, what dont you understand...

Literally?    I do not want to get caught up in the meaning of literally. 

Anyhow, part of the reason that we have some of this back and forth communication on this topic is b/c we have differing understandings on some terms, including the term coercion.  So, at this point, I am a little unclear about the point that you are making Dreamspark?  Did you want to chime in to clarify what is so clear about coercion and why living in society is coercion? 

There are people from third world countries who are fighting for the chance to live in america, in spite of all its supposedly "coercive" taxes.

[Richy_T]

I really do NOT understand the point of arguing about our supposedly being in a better position (possibly) if we did NOT have roads.  That makes very little sense (even if it were true).   Currently we have roads, and that is our starting point.. NOT some hypothetical fantasy land world without roads, and that life without roads may be more of a Richy_T argument rather than attributable to other libertarians.   

Again, you miss the point. It is not about the roads directly, it is about government control of the roads. Now, you will say that the government has to be in control of the roads and that, indeed, is the point of contention. That centralized control reduces the opportunity for a wider range of solutions.

[Richy_T]

 Having mandatory, is NOT the same as coercion.. b/c a large majority of the people do NOT need to be coerced to follow rules of their own making and a society of their own choosing and a community in which they chose to live... I would NOT call that coercion.  

If I resist paying taxes, the government intervenes with the threat of force. Threat of force is the very definition of coercion.

If people are really choosing to make rules to provide welfare, then they can skip the intermediate step and chose to provide welfare. Everything else is coercion.

That is why this back and forth communication with you is getting NO WHERE - b/c you keep insisting that your being part of a community is coercion... and you give way too much weight to this coercion aspect - to the extent that taxes are mandatory and a part of civil society, and almost anywhere in the world has some taxes.. though there is variation.  If you are an American (or another western country), you have won the lottery, b/c you can move almost anywhere in the world with your passport and find some haven that has little to no taxes.  What country are you from?   You seem to want the benefits of being part of a community, but you do NOT want to pay into that community's rate of taxation.

He literally just told you why being part of a community is coercion, what dont you understand...

Literally?    I do not want to get caught up in the meaning of literally. 

I believe he used "literally" in it's literal, or, perhaps I should say "original" meaning.

[JayJuanGee]

Roads are NOT going to be built in any kind of efficient way without public funding.  Surely, there may be better ways to go about accomplishing the same objectives, but roads are within the community desires about the solution.  If you want another solution, besides roads, you have to convince the community to move in that direction.  In your rural Tennessee example, that is converting to a less rural existence, the community seems to have decided that it wants more roads.... b/c they see that as the solution to the issue of having more people in the area.

Where did you get "rural" from? Could you stick to what's written? It's a two lane interstate that takes 20 minutes to go 5 miles for mostly unnecessary commutes. There's your central planning.

Yeah... let's get on a tangent...

Frequently, a central reason for adding lanes or roads is a perceived need b/c of population growth or traffic congestion.

I do NOT know about the circumstances or the rationale for the road in your non-rural tennessee location, except for your proclamation (one citizen's assessment) that it was NOT necessary b/c they could have substituted flying cars in that location. 

I do NOT want to minimize the importance of your input, but I am sure that there was more than one person that decided that the road was going to be a benefit to the community and that is why it was built.  And, also with public projects there are opportunities for community stake holders to comment regarding the necessity or lack thereof of the project.