|
BitterTea
|
 |
October 05, 2011, 01:31:03 PM |
|
Yeah, I know, it doesn't answer your question. I can't answer the question. It's like asking if you still enjoy beating your wife. It's a loaded question.
The answer is mu. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Transactions must be included in a block to be properly completed. When you send a transaction, it is broadcast to miners. Miners can then optionally include it in their next blocks. Miners will be more inclined to include your transaction if it has a higher transaction fee.
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
|
MoonShadow
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 1708
Merit: 1007
|
|
October 05, 2011, 01:36:43 PM |
|
That's not what I'm saying, either. I'm saying that regulation is okay if it actually is the best option, but that you have no way of knowing that because you are unwilling to consider alternatives.
Then we are in agreement. I don't want regulation. You don't want regulation. But if its the best option, we both agree that its right to regulate. <sigh> I resign. This conversation is futile. |
"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'
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 05, 2011, 02:06:06 PM |
|
The question I asked you was "If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales?" If I can demonstrate that forced slavery saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow forced enslavement? Probably more interesting question would've been: If I can demonstrate that castrating all male adults, and, going forward, castrating every male newborn, will help prevent rape, AIDS, sexually transmitted deseases, and unwanted pregnancies/abortions, and with the only reproductive choice being specifically planned extraction of sperm and invitro fertilization, thus greatly reducing the risks of overpopulation and destruction of the environment... would you be ready and willing to lose your d**k? |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 03:13:48 PM |
|
Probably more interesting question would've been:
If I can demonstrate that castrating all male adults, and, going forward, castrating every male newborn, will help prevent rape, AIDS, sexually transmitted deseases, and unwanted pregnancies/abortions, and with the only reproductive choice being specifically planned extraction of sperm and invitro fertilization, thus greatly reducing the risks of overpopulation and destruction of the environment... would you be ready and willing to lose your d**k?
I can't argue with that one. A regulation with a built-in answer. Can't beat that. Sign me up. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2011, 04:14:52 PM |
|
Assuming its the former, the damage done exceeds the damage avoided.
When you/he says "if I can demonstrate that X is beneficial, would you support it", the question must be answered as if X can be beneficial. Would you accept your non-answer in response to your question? If its beneficial, there isn't really a huge choice  The problem we have is that some things are beneficial in the real world but conflict with abstract principles. For example, its beneficial not to have nuclear weapins in every home but b2c and Fred feel that it infringes their liberty if they are not allowed have nukes in their homes. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 04:44:23 PM |
|
If its beneficial, there isn't really a huge choice The problem we have is that some things are beneficial in the real world but conflict with abstract principles. For example, its beneficial not to have nuclear weapins in every home but b2c and Fred feel that it infringes their liberty if they are not allowed have nukes in their homes. So answer Rassah's question regarding male castration. Seems he makes a very valid point. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2011, 04:54:33 PM |
|
If its beneficial, there isn't really a huge choice The problem we have is that some things are beneficial in the real world but conflict with abstract principles. For example, its beneficial not to have nuclear weapins in every home but b2c and Fred feel that it infringes their liberty if they are not allowed have nukes in their homes. So answer Rassah's question regarding male castration. Seems he makes a very valid point. Not really. Its an attempt to catch up with b2c's ubiquitous slavery analogy. I dealt with that umpteen times now so why waste time on a copy? |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 05, 2011, 04:56:50 PM |
|
How is that relevant? It's like one person is saying do X to save people, and you're saying, "No, because look how unacceptable Y is to reduce crime." Address X, not Y.
It's relevant because it calls into question regulatory nuances. The collar represents regulation. I may not have phrased it that way but that's what it implies. The government could just as easily lop our pointer fingers off because it's the finger most used to pull the trigger on a gun (hence, trigger finger). By doing so, there is a greater likelihood there will be less violent gun crimes. Funny thing is, gun manufacturers and criminals will find another way around given enough persistence. The examples are numerous. Address X, not Y. Demonstrate either solutions to X or the problems with solutions to X. Forget about Y and Z and W, etc. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 04:58:22 PM |
|
Not really. Its an attempt to catch up with b2c's ubiquitous slavery analogy. I dealt with that umpteen times now so why waste time on a copy?
For the same reason why I waste my time on yours. |
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2011, 05:02:21 PM |
|
Not really. Its an attempt to catch up with b2c's ubiquitous slavery analogy. I dealt with that umpteen times now so why waste time on a copy?
For the same reason why I waste my time on yours. OK - fair point. Both fail the simple "Is the harm done greater than the harm averted?" test. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 05:35:42 PM |
|
OK - fair point.
Both fail the simple "Is the harm done greater than the harm averted?" test.
If you must cause harm to stop harm you have either broken even (self-defense). However, in contradistinction to that, if you have initiated it, you have tipped the scales. I don't see the castration argument as much different. You will, no doubt, save lives. Castration is not life threatening, it is a somewhat temporary inconvenience. If what you are after is "saving" lives, it will do exactly that. There will be fewer deaths by STD's and incidentals (tainted blood supplies, abortions, unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation). The rebuttal has perfectly valid points given the same logical axioms as regulation. |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 05, 2011, 05:48:56 PM |
|
OK - fair point.
Both fail the simple "Is the harm done greater than the harm averted?" test.
If you must cause harm to stop harm you have either broken even (self-defense). However, in contradistinction to that, if you have initiated it, you have tipped the scales. I don't see the castration argument as much different. You will, no doubt, save lives. Castration is not life threatening, it is a somewhat temporary inconvenience. If what you are after is "saving" lives, it will do exactly that. There will be fewer deaths by STD's and incidentals (tainted blood supplies, abortions, unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation). The rebuttal has perfectly valid points given the same logical axioms as regulation. You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will. We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.). |
|
|
|
|
Hawker
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1001
|
|
October 05, 2011, 05:51:28 PM |
|
OK - fair point.
Both fail the simple "Is the harm done greater than the harm averted?" test.
If you must cause harm to stop harm you have either broken even (self-defense). However, in contradistinction to that, if you have initiated it, you have tipped the scales. I don't see the castration argument as much different. You will, no doubt, save lives. Castration is not life threatening, it is a somewhat temporary inconvenience. If what you are after is "saving" lives, it will do exactly that. There will be fewer deaths by STD's and incidentals (tainted blood supplies, abortions, unwanted pregnancies and overpopulation). The rebuttal has perfectly valid points given the same logical axioms as regulation. If you have to choose between 2 harms, take the less harmful one and you are ahead. For example, if you have to choose between a blanket prohibition on nukes and a risk of people using nukes for personal reasons, the blanket prohibition is essentially harmless while the use of nukes is destructive. Its a very easy choice. Castration on the other hand is a greater harm than a STD so again the choice is very easy. Same applies to slavery. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:00:13 PM |
|
You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.
We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).
Version A of ownership cannot exist without Version B of ownership. They are intertwined, which is why property and person are nearly one and the same in some contexts. "In the general course of human nature, A power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." --Alexander Hamilton |
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:12:04 PM |
|
You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.
We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).
Version A of ownership cannot exist without Version B of ownership. They are intertwined, which is why property and person are nearly one and the same in some contexts. They are intertwined, but definitely distinct. Version A is undeniable, essentially sacred. Everything that falls under Version B must factor in its interdependence with everything else. If you cannot understand that, then go find something else to debate. |
|
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:34:10 PM |
|
If you have to choose between 2 harms, take the less harmful one and you are ahead. For example, if you have to choose between a blanket prohibition on nukes and a risk of people using nukes for personal reasons, the blanket prohibition is essentially harmless while the use of nukes is destructive. Its a very easy choice.
Castration on the other hand is a greater harm than a STD so again the choice is very easy. Same applies to slavery.
I would argue that rape, abortion, the millions who are dying of AIDS, the hundreds of thousands of orphans, and the looming threat of millions more dying from thirst and starvation due to overpopulation and possible wars, are WAY WAY WAY more harmful than a simple medical procedure followed by a few days of discomfort. Heck, we already circumcise. Why not just take it an inch further? Or, if the idea of cutting of valuables is too much for you, why not ban all sexual activity? It wouldn't be as effective as castration, but regulating it will lead to similar beneficial results. |
|
|
|
|
|
FredericBastiat
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:35:37 PM |
|
They are intertwined, but definitely distinct. Version A is undeniable, essentially sacred. Everything that falls under Version B must factor in its interdependence with everything else. If you cannot understand that, then go find something else to debate.
Why don't you just debate what you will do with your property and leave me to debate what I'll do with mine. |
|
|
|
Rassah
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1680
Merit: 1035
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:35:43 PM |
|
You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.
We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.).
Version A of ownership cannot exist without Version B of ownership. They are intertwined, which is why property and person are nearly one and the same in some contexts. They are intertwined, but definitely distinct. Version A is undeniable, essentially sacred. Everything that falls under Version B must factor in its interdependence with everything else. If you cannot understand that, then go find something else to debate. Is a prosthetic limb or a wheelchair A or B? Just curious. |
|
|
|
|
|
FirstAscent
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:54:55 PM |
|
They are intertwined, but definitely distinct. Version A is undeniable, essentially sacred. Everything that falls under Version B must factor in its interdependence with everything else. If you cannot understand that, then go find something else to debate.
Is a prosthetic limb or a wheelchair A or B? Just curious. It should be very clear from my statement. They are B. And if you read what I wrote, you'll see that one then factors in the interdependence with everything else. What is the prosthetic limb's interdependence with the host's body vs. its interdependence with all other things? Clearly, the limb's interdependence with the host's body is very high and the limb's interdependence with everything else is very limited. |
|
|
|
|
|
NghtRppr
|
|
October 05, 2011, 06:56:45 PM |
|
You are so wrong. The castration issue is not like the other issues. You own (call it version A of ownership, if you will) your body. Everything else is not version A of ownership. Call it version B of ownership, if you will.
We can then break down version B of ownership into many different versions (ownership of a sofa vs. ownership of land, etc.). Why? |
|
|
|
|
|
