Bitcoin Forum
November 09, 2024, 01:48:46 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 28.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Socialism  (Read 8007 times)
smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 02:43:32 AM
 #141

the fundamental problem is that costs are too high. All the rest of what you're talking about stems from that simple fact.

No, I disagree.  You're confusing problem with symptom.  The high prices (and poor overall outcomes) of US healthcare relative to other countries is a *symptom* of the dysfunction in the current system.  It is not, by itself the cause.

I'll agree that there are root causes for the high prices, but if the prices were not high, people wouldn't be going bankrupt. Bring prices down (whether it is by government decree or market mechanisms—it doesn't matter for this part of the discussion) and people get affordable health care and don't go bankrupt any more and everyone is happy.

So the dysfunction in the system would be no big deal if it didn't drive costs and prices up, pricing people out of the healthcare market and forcing them to rely on insurance.

One of the big issues resulting in high individual pricing is that the healthcare revenue pool is currently not well-aligned with the cost pool.  This causes a huge amount of unpaid costs and preventable emergency care costs to be tacked on to those who responsibly have insurance and pay their bills, including business-financed health plans.  Again issue->misalignment, symptom->high prices to those that actually pay for healthcare.  Alignment of revenue & costs is a key part of the solution.  Freeriders be gone.

That's a real part of the problem, but last I looked at the numbers it was not the bulk of the problem. Maybe you have newer numbers?

The other big issue is citizen unwillingness/inability to afford healthcare planning en-masse.  Why do people find themselves with crushing medical debt, unprepared, and even uninsured?  There's a whole number of reasons this happens, and only a few are individually controllable.

Making more rational choices about insurance and out-of-pocket costs are a step in the right direction. Me doing it? Not so much. But if more people did, well, pharma companies charge $500 per pill because they know that the insurance companies will pay it no matter what, and because they can manipulate doctors and insurance companies into prescribing and paying for the newest medicines that are still under patent. When people start choosing 50¢ or 5¢ per pill alternatives, the pharma companies will lower their costs to compete. It may still be $5 or $15 per pill if they have a pill that is still covered by patent but competition with existing products will bring prices down, if only there is a little transparency and if we stop totally insulating customers from costs.

And I'm not exaggerating. There are pills out there where your doctor will prescribe you the newest $15,000 per month medicine and it will cost you a $10 co-pay. You could actually choose a generic where you would have to take two pills per day instead of one, but it is exactly the same medicine, and it would be $15/month. Why would a doctor prescribe the $15/month pill? there is a real benefit to having to take only one pill per day instead of remembering to take it twice. It's better for the patient to get the 1x/day pill. Why would the patient choose the cheaper pill? It costs the same to the patient.

And that is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the kinds of shenanigans the pharma companies pull because of the lack of consumer transparency.

And you know what else? Insurance companies LOVE to pay more. Why? Because they pass the costs on in higher premiums but the fact that healthcare costs skyrocket means that people are terrified not to have complete head-to-toe coverage. So the more crap the pharma companies (and other providers) pull, the more the insurance companies laugh their way to the bank.

Carrying insurance, which insulates you from catastrophic or severe expenses is good. It is something everyone should have. Carrying a health plan that insulates you from every expense and makes every decision cost-neutral, on the other hand, is a terrible idea. It guarantees that you will pay more for your healthcare than you would have without it.

It may be a terrible idea to you, and I bet to many alert people with time to micromanage their healthcare, plan ahead, and have a stash of free cash for emergencies and "wellness" care.  This is not the profile of the average US citizen, this is not even your 30th percentile citizen.  I'm happy for you and you seem to have succeeded so far.  However I disagree your stategy is widely applicable, or that it's a good idea to export it to those who are known to be ill-prepared to execute it.

Partial self-insurance is not a workable/sound idea for a population who, for various reasons, is unable to save even for their own retirement.  75% of US people nearing retirement have <$30K saved.

This just is not true. I live in one of the most expensive areas in the United States and these days my income is significantly below median. I have zero savings. I probably will not have a real meal today because I don't have the money for it. I am as close to bankrupt as you can possibly be; I could probably file for bankruptcy today and have no questions asked. If I had a sudden accident that led to a $10,000 medical bill, I could set up a payment plan with the hospital and not even get a nasty letter or a ding on my credit record. I have done this, and paid my bills. It's not easy or fun but it is possible. A low-deductable plan, on the other hand, brings crippling monthly insurance costs. I would soon be homeless if I were paying for a plan with a $250 deductable and all my office visits and medicines were covered.

It doesn't take a lot of time and effort to "micromanage" your healthcare and it doesn't take a huge stash of cash. All it takes is putting the same attention into buying healthcare services and insurance that you put into buying groceries. Actually, a whole lot less attention.

if you start talking about cost-effective medicine people freak out like it means cutting corners and getting shoddy care. But because I pay out of pocket, I get to make reasoned choices about the health care options in front of me...

Again, you may be good at negotiating, and it may provide you with instant savings.  The skill and inclination to execute this isn't common, and it's not a strategy that will succeed for your average (especially below-average) population.  There is an enormous, built-in imbalance of power in healthcare, and the patient is ALWAYS in the weakest (pun intended) position to negotiate.  Why hang your hat in the weakest of all pegs?

I don't negotiate. I have never negotiated with my doctor. I pay my doctor my doctor's regular office visit fee. I ask what the cost is for a proposed treatment, I look up prices. I ask about alternatives. Again, this is not some special skill. It's called having a conversation with my doctor. My doctor says I'm one of his only patients that does that and he says he finds it refreshing. But it is not some magical medicine-negotiation-fu. It's just having a conversation, asking questions, and having my doctor make rational recommendations.

The closest I have come to a negotiation is when the NP wrote a new refill for 30mg tablets. I looked up the price and saw that the 30mg tablets were 90/month. If I chose to take three 10mg tablets per day instead it was $9. So I emailed asking whether she would write a new prescription for the 10mg tablets 3x/day. That was ten whole minutes out of my life.

"...get to make reasoned choices about the health care options in front of me"....really now?  This must be close to verbatim what I read on a notice years ago...Human Resources smooth talk for higher premiums, higher co-pays, and higher out-of-pocket limits.  But hey, they're doing us all a favor, we should all feel good 'cause now we're all empowered and motivated, and have skin-in-the-game, and I guess the HR people can sleep at night.  I'll tell you, a decreasing amount of people actually find these statements convincing.  Not because they're not achievable by some (i.e. there's a bit of truth in every good lie), but because by now everyone is aware they're impractical for most.

You're absolutely right to be suspicious of your HR department telling you that, but I think that with a tiny amount of research you'll find that even if what your HR person suggested was a boondoggle that the general principle will save you money.

You talk about regular checkups.  The costs to deliver these are tiny compared to non-preventive care.  Yet, a surprisingly large proportion of patients don't take advantage of annual wellness checkups even when included in their "subscription plan".  I assert that the rate of preventive care will always be hopelessly worse with self-payers.  Given the documented cost-benefit of catching conditions early, again another area your suggestions, as successful as they may prove to you, just don't scale and don't improve the overall system.

This suggests what I have been saying: people need to pay more attention and make better choices.

Unless people start paying for their own health care, this cycle will never end and eventually the country will be basically a "company town" where we all work for the health care industry.
Really?  The cycle will *never* end?  Well, signs already point to this not being the case, but no one can rule out we'll go a few more years of escalating HC costs.
That being said, you paint an impossible unraveling.  We will NEVER become a "company town" where we all work to pay for HC.  The people will install some form of "single-payer" long before we're anywhere near your prediction.  Not a chance.

My prediction is that we'll be taking another run at a public option again in ~10 years time.  No "company town".

OK. I don't refute your prediction. But I'm troubled by the fact that the "solution" to the healthcare crisis is to intentionally make things so much worse that people become desperate enough to have single payer when there are solutions in front of us that could knock the pharma and insurance companies on their asses and bring health care costs back into reason.

Look at the portion of our economy that goes to the healthcare industry, compare that to what it was twenty or fifty years ago, and then tell me that my "company town" prediction isn't close to the target, if admittedly overly dramatic. And if you think that we're going to go single payer without setting it up in such a way that that proportion doesn't increase and go directly into the pockets of the people who currently run big pharma and insurance, you have more faith in the charitable nature of Congress than I do.

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 02:49:50 PM
 #142

You were confusing non-aggression principle (basically, "I will not be the first to initiate force") with nonviolence (basically, "I will not be violent, no matter what, period). NAP doesn't mean that no violence will ever happen.

Well, quite frankly I don't see the point of it then.

Quote
Whenever someone threatens your person or property.

Who decides when your person or property is "threatened"? It seems as though it would be very subjective. And what decides the limit of your retaliation. If someone stabs me, can I follow the NAP and shoot them? Or is that initiating greater aggression? If I shoot at the person, do they now have the right to kill me? Is their earlier violence justified because I encouraged greater violence?

Quote
It's not so much self defense v.s. aggression, it's who initiated the aggression. As long as someone continues to threaten your life, they are continuing to initiate aggression. You can shoot them in defense, but you can also defend yourself by shooting their gun hand, by sabotaging their weapons, by hiring security to keep them away from you, or even asking why they believe you owe them your life and attempting to resolve the conflict without violence.

So if it's all about who initiated the aggression, what is "initiation" defined as?

If someone insults me, is that an "initiation"?
If someone threatens to kill me, but doesn't actually go through with it, can I kill them in "self defense"?

Quote
Same as above, it's not nonviolence, it's who initiated force. If the defender killed the attacker, he is still only responding to the initiation of force, and is still following the NAP. The only question is whether such extreme defense was justified, or if the situation could have been resolved more amicably (e.g. if the attacker was just drunk and waving a gun around, but was not serious about wanting to kill someone)

Well that question about whether or not it's justified is what bugs me. It seems as though there's really no set definition for the NAP. It basically says don't attack people, but it's fine to kill as many people as you want as long as they threatened you in some way.

You can't start a fight, but you sure can finish it.

Quote
Rabid dogs, and anyone who believe they have a right to your property and life, and are willing to use force to obtain it. Forcing you to pay taxes or fees for things you don't need or wasn't, at the threat of being arrested, imprisoned, or shot, is considered initiation of force in NAP.

There's no debtors prisons anymore. If you don't pay taxes, then you don't get the benefits of paying them. You won't be shot...

But if the simple "threat" of imprisonment is enough to warrant retaliation, does that mean that I can steal from someone and then when the police come, I can kill them because they threatened to imprison me? And if paying taxes is a threat under the NAP, does that mean I can go around killing government workers?

For a "non-aggression" philosophy it seems rather harsh...
smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 05:46:03 PM
 #143

Who decides…

You know, it's a principle, not a law. Unless you're a sociopath, you know what it means. Admittedly there is a lot of room for misinterpretation, but that is also true of nearly any other principle. "Honesty is the best policy" unless of course the Nazis are asking about whether you have Jews hidden in your attic, which really doesn't invalidate the principle, does it?

There's no debtors prisons anymore. If you don't pay taxes, then you don't get the benefits of paying them. You won't be shot...

If you refuse to pay your taxes, they will send people with guns to take you to your trial and will escort you to the place where you get to live while you're not getting the benefits of paying your taxes. If you refuse to come along you will have those guns pointed at you and if you try to run you will be shot. Whatever consequences are doled out, it is backed by the threat of violence.

That's not necessarily wrong but one ought not be in denial about it.

Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 06:01:35 PM
 #144

Whenever someone threatens your person or property.

Who decides when your person or property is "threatened"?

The owner of the property.

Quote
It seems as though it would be very subjective.

It is. One person may feel more threatened by an action than another.

Quote
And what decides the limit of your retaliation.

You decide, with the understanding that others will judge you by how you respond. If you shoot someone for stepping on your lawn, without even a warning, that will obviously be considered as excessive use of force (you consider it as such, right?), and others may retaliate against you, either by seeking compensation, or ostracizing you.

Quote
If someone stabs me, can I follow the NAP and shoot them? Or is that initiating greater aggression?

If they are stabbing you, and you are defending yourself, sure. If they stabbed you and left you, and you are just seeking retribution later, that's a different issue.

Quote
If I shoot at the person, do they now have the right to kill me? Is their earlier violence justified because I encouraged greater violence?

That's between you, your shooter, and your community. If you initiated force by shooting that person, whether to rob him, or for no reason, then you basically gave up the right not to be shot, unless you figure out how to repair your standing in the community.


Quote
So if it's all about who initiated the aggression, what is "initiation" defined as?

That's the difficult part that can at times be blatantly obvious, and at times might require judges or arbitration to settle.

Quote
If someone insults me, is that an "initiation"?

Sure. Feel free to insult them back.

Quote
If someone threatens to kill me, but doesn't actually go through with it, can I kill them in "self defense"?

If it is a legitimate threat on your life, as in they make it known that it's not just a verbal threat without intent to follow through, then maybe? All depends on how you expect your actions to be viewed in the community you wish to remain a part of. The end result you are hoping for is to continue to have others respect your right to your own life and property. It's up to you in how you maintain that respect.


Quote
Well that question about whether or not it's justified is what bugs me. It seems as though there's really no set definition for the NAP. It basically says don't attack people, but it's fine to kill as many people as you want as long as they threatened you in some way.

NAP is you living among a group of other people who agree to the NAP. If your neighbor started killing everyone who threatened him in some way, how would you react? Would you consider that your neighbor is justified in what he is doing? Or would you consider him to be using excessive force, and refuse to have any dealings with him? Hopefully the neighbor will take that into consideration, too. You could even split it to where the person he killed initiated minor force by tresspassing, while the neighbor essentially ignored the tresspass by not acknowledging it, and initiated force against that person's life. No one is claimingthat NAP is "as simple as..." That's where judges, arbitrators, and already established legal precedents come in. NAP proponents aren't advocating throwing the entire legal system out the window and starting from scratch, either.


Quote
There's no debtors prisons anymore. If you don't pay taxes, then you don't get the benefits of paying them. You won't be shot...

As I understand it, it won't be a debt you have to pay, but a fine. Then if you refuse to pay the fine, you will be asked to serve a time in prison. If you refuse to serve in prison, you will be dragged there by force. If you refuse the force, you will be shot.

Quote
But if the simple "threat" of imprisonment is enough to warrant retaliation, does that mean that I can steal from someone and then when the police come, I can kill them because they threatened to imprison me?

Hopefully there won't be prisons, or police, in an anarchist NAP society.  If you get summoned to show up in court because you aggressed on someone's property, and you refuse, then the issue is simply unresolved, and the person you aggressed against, as well as anyone on their side, can continue to ignore your right to your own property. Being ostracized and not be allowed to participate in community and business can be way worse than prison.

Quote
And if paying taxes is a threat under the NAP, does that mean I can go around killing government workers?

Technically, if they come for your stuff without reason, you refuse to give it to them, and they threaten to shoot you in order to force you to give it to them, then yes. Ethically you would be in the right. Just make sure you are aware of the consequences.
The issue with that gets more complicated, though, in that if they ask for taxes for things you have already used (drove on roads, got clean water, etc), then it's money that is actually owed them. They are in the right for asking for it. If it's for things you were forced to pay for, despite not wanting to, like wars, illegal spying, etc, then that's different.
J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 06:15:10 PM
 #145

From the way you describe it, it seems as though the NAP is just common sense. I guess I follow it anyways. I don't go around picking fights.

Also, I'm pretty sure that you cannot go to prison for not paying taxes. They may take the clothes off your back until you pay it, but if you have nothing to take they can't do anything.
boot52
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 06:38:17 PM
 #146

Socialsim doesn't work because soclialism always devolves into cronyism sooner or later, no matter how good your intentions are at first. Crooks are constantly figuring out new and creative ways to seize the levers of power. They're a lot better at it than you. They're smart and they work at it 24/7. So while you're busy writing letters to your congressmen and whatnot, they're busy writing checks (among other things). Who do you think 'your representative' is going to listen to?

All you starry-eyed socialists out there better wake up and wake up fast.
smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 06:40:24 PM
 #147

Also, I'm pretty sure that you cannot go to prison for not paying taxes. They may take the clothes off your back until you pay it, but if you have nothing to take they can't do anything.

I'm pretty sure that you can.

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/lauryn-hill-starts-prison-sentence-tax-evasion-article-1.1393101
http://www.cpapracticeadvisor.com/news/11079783/used-car-dealer-gets-30-months-in-prison-for-tax-evasion
http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2013/07/colleyville-pharmacist-and-son-get-prison-time-for-tax-fraud.html/
http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/celebrity.news.gossip/12/09/snipes.jail/index.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/woman-sentenced-in-st-louis-to-prison-for-million-tax/article_5749051d-fe88-5837-a869-ddc2199400a6.html

(and that's just from the first two pages of results in Google)

…and of course, there was Al Capone.

J603
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 196
Merit: 100



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 06:47:45 PM
 #148


Tax evasion is a different crime.

There are three tax related crimes:

1. Tax Evasion. This is a felony and you can go to prison. 5 year maximum.
2. Filing a False return. This a felony and you can go to prison. Slightly less of a punishment than evasion (3 years max).
3. Failure to file a tax return. This is a misdimeanor, and it's unlikely that you will go to jail (even then the max sentence is 1 year so you won't go to prison). You will get a huge fine.

But #3 is assuming you have something to pay taxes for. Like I said, if you don't use any taxable services you can't be taxed.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 08:36:27 PM
 #149

Also, I'm pretty sure that you cannot go to prison for not paying taxes. They may take the clothes off your back until you pay it, but if you have nothing to take they can't do anything.

Only reason I know about this is because of a new report about how some guy living on some compound is refusing to pay taxes, but the only reason the police is not going in there guns blazing is because he and his family/friends are well armed, and they don't leave the compound, being mostly self-sufficient. So the police just figure it's better to leave them alone.
Anon136
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 08:39:38 PM
 #150

Also, I'm pretty sure that you cannot go to prison for not paying taxes. They may take the clothes off your back until you pay it, but if you have nothing to take they can't do anything.

Only reason I know about this is because of a new report about how some guy living on some compound is refusing to pay taxes, but the only reason the police is not going in there guns blazing is because he and his family/friends are well armed, and they don't leave the compound, being mostly self-sufficient. So the police just figure it's better to leave them alone.

wow a real sovereign living here in the us. link?

Rep Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=381041
If one can not confer upon another a right which he does not himself first possess, by what means does the state derive the right to engage in behaviors from which the public is prohibited?
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 08:44:14 PM
 #151

What's the difference between tax evasion and failure to pay taxes?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 09, 2013, 09:19:04 PM
 #152

What's the difference between tax evasion and failure to pay taxes?

You don't know?

Tax evasion is lying about what you owe.
Rassah
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 10:16:13 PM
 #153

What's the difference between tax evasion and failure to pay taxes?

You don't know?

Tax evasion is lying about what you owe.

Thanks. Evasion suggests avoiding paying taxes (as per definition of evasion), so it doesn't sound that different from failing to pay taxes because you don't want to, e.i. avoiding it. I think tax evasion should be renamed tax fraud (i.e. lying), but I guess they'll call it whatever they want.
smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 10:23:46 PM
 #154

Socialsim doesn't work because soclialism always devolves into cronyism sooner or later, no matter how good your intentions are at first. Crooks are constantly figuring out new and creative ways to seize the levers of power. They're a lot better at it than you. They're smart and they work at it 24/7. So while you're busy writing letters to your congressmen and whatnot, they're busy writing checks (among other things). Who do you think 'your representative' is going to listen to?

All you starry-eyed socialists out there better wake up and wake up fast.

I don't know if you're counting me among the starry-eyed but if I have defended socialism it's not because I disagree with your first paragraph but because I prefer to see a straight-up socialist program which will sooner or later devolve into cronyism to one that starts up-front with the cronyism. As an example, given the choice between single-payer healthcare and the Affordable Care Act, I'd rather see single-payer.

You can reform or repeal socialism—not easily, but it is possible. Cronyism is with us forever, and doesn't even give us that few decades, years, or months of actual benefit before devolving and/or dragging the economy down to do more harm than good; it just starts biting us in the ass on day 1.

It's a lesser of two evils thing, not a desire for socialism. Except for courts, law enforcement, fire departments, roads, and schools (and probably more I can't think of off the top of my head). As stated before, I am in favor of that much socialism. Or at the very least saving them for the last to take away from government.

smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 09, 2013, 10:31:31 PM
 #155

What's the difference between tax evasion and failure to pay taxes?

You don't know?

Tax evasion is lying about what you owe.

Thanks. Evasion suggests avoiding paying taxes (as per definition of evasion), so it doesn't sound that different from failing to pay taxes because you don't want to, e.i. avoiding it. I think tax evasion should be renamed tax fraud (i.e. lying), but I guess they'll call it whatever they want.

"Tax evasion" is a criminal subset of the larger set of "tax fraud" laws.

http://www.taxwhistleblowerreport.com/department-of-justice/tax-fraud-vs-tax-evasion---how-can-a-whistleblower-tell-the-differencewe-get-questions-all-the-time/

As to the earlier point about whether you can go to jail for simple failure to pay, it looks as though the law says you can.

In any case, even if you don't go to prison, lets say they repossess your house or some other belonging in your possession. They will send the sheriff to remove you from the property or to take away whatever it is they are taking away. If you refuse, the people with guns and badges will arrest you. If you resist, it is fairly unlikely you'll actually be shot, but you will likely end up face down on the ground with guns pointed at you while you are being handcuffed. The "threat of violence" is very real even if you file all your returns honestly and then simply refuse to pay.


EscrowBTC
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42
Merit: 0



View Profile
August 09, 2013, 10:47:25 PM
 #156

People often confuse "socialism" with the concept of "communism." While the two ideologies share much in common, in fact communism encompasses socialism.
The primary difference between the two is that "socialism" applies to economic systems, whereas "communism" applies to both economic and political systems.

Another difference between socialism and communism is that communists directly oppose the concept of capitalism, an economic system in which production is controlled by private interests.
Socialists, on the other hand, believe socialism can exist within a capitalist society.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204
Merit: 1002


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
August 10, 2013, 03:13:15 AM
 #157

…and of course, there was Al Capone.
And Heidi Fleiss...  That's what she went down for too..

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
smscotten
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile WWW
August 10, 2013, 03:35:59 AM
 #158

…and of course, there was Al Capone.
And Heidi Fleiss...  That's what she went down for too..

I thought she was paying other people to go down…

Sorry, cheap shot. I'm a bad person.

dominicus
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 97
Merit: 10



View Profile
August 10, 2013, 06:27:57 AM
 #159


Help me troubleshoot my BTC address.
Send some coins here: 1FkQS1RuEmSppCPdGPVGHtc4aj2nBiHAYF
If I don't return your test transfer, it must be having issues still.
supernovax
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 22, 2014, 12:54:41 PM
 #160

Socialism means your economic decisions are interfered with by others in the community (this can take many forms and is responsible for the various flavors and styles of suggested intervention)..

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!