|
Anonymous
Guest
|
 |
July 01, 2011, 08:03:05 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:21:16 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
+1. On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control. I estimate 20% would be sufficient. |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:22:38 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
+1. On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control. I estimate 20% would be sufficient. Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha. Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent. |
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:24:48 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Ha ha  |
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:28:11 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
+1. On a side note, I have often wondered how much percentage of the population would have to subscribe to private security agencies in order to protect against fledging statists reasserting control. I estimate 20% would be sufficient. Not even in our current system are you obligated to protection from the police. Haha. Besides, having a threatened populace is bad for business. Order will be inherent. True but sad: http://50thingstonotknow.blogspot.com/2006/12/police-arent-legally-obligated-to.htmlI think it all goes back to the age old question: Is liberty the mother or the daughter of order? |
|
|
|
|
|
AyeYo
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:29:35 PM |
|
Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.
|
Enjoying the dose of reality or getting a laugh out of my posts? Feel free to toss me a penny or two, everyone else seems to be doing it! 1Kn8NqvbCC83zpvBsKMtu4sjso5PjrQEu1
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:31:27 PM |
|
Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me" |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:32:00 PM |
|
This is far from an overblown statement. Fact: The only thing libertarianism works against is force against the individual's right to himself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Script
|
|
July 01, 2011, 08:34:50 PM |
|
Ahh...the age old question: "Why the hell am I paying taxes to fund these police parasites when they aren't even legally obliged to protect me"Hey man, it's for a good cause. How else could we afford to bomb brown people? |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 01, 2011, 09:26:31 PM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
+1 |
|
|
|
Mittlyle
Newbie
 Offline
Activity: 42
Merit: 0
|
|
July 01, 2011, 10:52:39 PM |
|
I do appreciate the libertarian ideology for it's internal coherence. The main problem for me, however, is the concept of fairness. Our current economics (and very likely one in libertarianism too) is one form of structural classism. Poor people are by default in debt, paying interest for being that way. The rich on the other hand have a chance to earn interest on already having wealth. Thats just arbitrary construction that just happens to be. I see no moral problem with fixing it with an another one. Obviously thats just one example of systemic unfairness. Individuals may be able to overcome those, but in aggregate the result is obvious. In games like go and renju handicap or handicap rules are given to make the game even as first player has otherwise an advantage. Everybody agrees these rules are reasonable and fair. Life should be no exception.
Fairness and justice are values just as are property rights. Your definition of fairness may be different than mine but so may be my perception of property rights to yours. Thus, to achieve more just outcome I deem taxation – aka legitimized stealing and thus tampering your property rights – completely fine. Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth. To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time. To say there's no obligation is just immoral. To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.
In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.
I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it. In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 01, 2011, 11:09:12 PM |
|
Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.
Dramatic? Yes. But think about it. Taxation is, at its most basic level, the violent extortion of money. It's a mugging.
|
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
July 01, 2011, 11:09:12 PM |
|
Strict property rights – sounds great, but to make that an absolute value? That's insanity. If somebody has in excess and other is deprived, it's almost an human right that there happens a transfer of wealth.
I'll concede that it's almost a human right, but it's still not. However, the right to keep the fruits of one's own labors most certainly is a human right that is regularly violated by people who claim the authority to do so by reason that they are the government.
To say that wealthy would put up a private charity that's sufficient is naive and arrogant at the same time.
It seems to have worked pretty well in the US right up until the New Deal.
To say there's no obligation is just immoral.
Obligation to do what, exactly? Aid your fellow man? Sure, I'm obligated as a Christian to help the needy, but that is my religious obligation. It's not something that can be satisfied on my behalf by government taking from me to give to another. Nor can I, as a Christian, force my mores upon others.
To force fortunate people to invest in their fellow citizens – well-being is capital – is both just and will be beneficial to the society as whole.
<sigh> If you aren't a communist at 20, then you have no heart. If you are still a communist at 30, then you have no sense.
In libertarian system values are greatly defined by success in game called economics. Money, however, is bad measurement for being a good friend, a wife, a husband or a member of community. Art, culture, science and nature would be subordinate to profit. To fix that one needs just to give sufficient freedom from economy so these just as important values have chance to flourish.
You obviously have a distorted understanding of what libertarian system would be. I agree, the current system is broken and does not function. Taxes are used to means not morally justifiable. Decisions have nothing to do with public opinion. However, if your car is broken you wouldn't wreck it altogether and say everybody else should do the same. You would fix it.
There comes a point that it's no longer worth trying to fix, and it's just better to junk it and try again. We passed that point around 1971.
In this case something considerably more lightweight design might do the trick. My model is basic income (or NIT, they are equivalent) + 10%-40% overall tax rate + abolishing of IPRs + regulations on enviroment and safety of products + free elementary education and subvented basic healthcare, more expensive treatments through insurance. Basically I'm advocate of public and private living side by side as they will dovetail each others flaws.
Public & private is what we have been getting for as long as I have been alive, and as you pointed out above, that seems to lead to a broken system with endless stream of bad decisions. |
"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."
- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
|
|
|
|
Dusty
|
|
July 01, 2011, 11:13:34 PM |
|
Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.
Dramatic? Yes. But think about it. Taxation is, at its most basic level, the violent extortion of money. It's a mugging.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
em3rgentOrdr
|
|
July 01, 2011, 11:20:50 PM |
|
Our argument isn't that the car is broken. Our argument is that it runs on human blood, and maybe we should get another car.
+1. Can anyone say "paradigm shift"? |
"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
|
|
|
qbg
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
July 02, 2011, 12:03:53 AM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth. |
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 02, 2011, 12:09:19 AM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth. You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth. |
|
|
|
qbg
Member
Offline
Activity: 74
Merit: 10
|
|
July 02, 2011, 12:17:49 AM |
|
We are so sorry you don't have the power to loot and murder in the name of whatever whims and desires you may deem acceptable. We are sorry you can't make yourself entitled to other's earnings nor enslave others to provide for people you may deem worthy.
However, if you believe your use of violence is so acceptable, then you can try your luck against our armed populace and our competent and competitive set of judicial systems and authorities. I'm sure if your murder and theft is so loving and caring, there won't be an issue.
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth. You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth. They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse. |
|
|
|
|
|
Anonymous
Guest
|
|
July 02, 2011, 12:19:26 AM |
|
Not everybody derives value from just money. People will easily bid over the lower ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
myrkul
|
|
July 02, 2011, 12:23:58 AM |
|
Don't worry -- you can still loot people -- you just have to be more subtle about it. Just find some down-on-their-luck person needing money and pay them a fraction of their worth.
You assume they'd be OK with that. You also assume there wouldn't be 50 other people clamoring to pay for their worth. They'll probably be more okay with that than starving to death, or stealing and being hunted down. As for your competitors, you just have to make sure that you are Extracting close to the market rate. You don't have to worry too much -- your competitors will be like you and so the rate is good enough (after all, they need to make a profit), and if you do well enough in your market, you will face only a few serious competitors at worse. Wait, which is it? |
|
|
|
|
