Bitcoin Forum
June 23, 2018, 02:53:36 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [All]
  Print  
Author Topic: Governments will want their TAX ??? The solution is obvious but scary.  (Read 15780 times)
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 10:46:20 AM
 #1

As this new currency becomes popular, governments will want their tax.  But that would be hard to collect from consumers, but could be done for sellers (of physical products).

Taxes used to provide a service to citizens. They still do but citizens have less control over the use of said taxes. If this currency takes off, taxes of the future will be donations to the Government. If you want a military, roads, water, etc..., you will have to voluntarily pay taxes to the FED, State, Town, etc...   The problem is how would the Government give the money back. They would have to know who to send it to and then they could track it.  I too, think there is lots of corruption in the centralize monetary system and that taxes are misused but taxes are a necessary thing for modern society. IMO, citizens have been lazy in not demanding proper use and transparency of their tax dollars.

If this works, it should be pegged to an element of intrinsic value. (Gold, etc..)  Has anyone notice that we did not get into trouble until countries left the gold standard. Markets were forced to correct (ie 29 depression) or completely fail. Today they just print more money and tell everyone it is OK. It is funny if you think about it.  Hey, turn in your gold, we have paper for you instead, TRUST US. They even put it on our money, In God We Trust.  How prophetic.  Pennies have more value than the dollar.  BTW, <1982 pennies are worth 2¢. Instantly double your money.  This is because a penny has intrinsic value in copper.

I do like the system though, it is like the swiss password account. Even utilizing the two key system. One public and one private. You have to have the private key and the account number to access the account. We just need a way of properly protecting the .dat file from all the things that can go wrong.  The biggest threat will be keyloggers and spyware and when people have enough money in their files it will become a serious threat.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
1529722416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529722416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529722416
Reply with quote  #2

1529722416
Report to moderator
1529722416
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1529722416

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1529722416
Reply with quote  #2

1529722416
Report to moderator
The World's Betting Exchange

Bet with play money. Win real Bitcoin. 5BTC Prize Fund for World Cup 2018.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 11:26:41 AM
 #2

If this currency takes off, taxes of the future will be donations to the Government.
I'm surprised you haven't been shot down by the free-marketers & anarchists already.... haven't you realized yet?Huh  The bit-future is devoid of any government!!!  (that's me being sarcastic, I sympathize with the free-market/libertarian guys but suspect that, like communism, it'd be great in theory and terrible in practice.)

Tell me, why did you say taxes-by-donation would be scary?  Do you think nobody would donate and so society would crumble?  Or do you mean it would be scary because the govt could trace bitcoins?  A bitcoin mixer would be enough to fool that (see other discussions).
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
March 01, 2011, 11:56:54 AM
 #3

Well that begs the obvious question, if a government collects taxes by "donation" for it to provide services, why not simply pay a company to provide those services instead? I can guarantee they'll be able to offer a much better service at a lower price than the government.

I've never seen a government do anything better than a private company (except mess up or waste money).

Governments, even the best of them are ineficient, and only manage to survive not by competition, but by banning competition, and forcing people to pay for it's services with tax. Once a tax becomes voluntary it ceases to be tax by definition.
   

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
Anonymous
Guest

March 01, 2011, 12:00:58 PM
 #4

Mutual aid societies existed before government welfare .




Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
March 01, 2011, 12:09:02 PM
 #5

Mutual aid societies existed before government welfare .


Don't forget simple charity.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
no to the gold cult
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 01, 2011, 02:14:41 PM
 #6

I really don't think that Libertarians know what Society is. They want to get rid of the state because it's corrupted and serves "shady power interests" but they have no real grasp of what society without the state is. They think it's all just self-interest and market forces, as if the combination of all that would some how lead to a better world.

Hemingway said "The world is a fine place indeed, and worth fighting for". I agree. The state can suck in a lot of ways, but it's worth fighting for control of. What I'm saying here is that the state is useful and thus must be subject to democratic forces, not just abandoned in disgust because power-elitists have riddled it with their agendas.

Anyway, it's one thing to reject the state, but if you don't know what society is, then disposing of the state isn't going to solve your problems. The kind of things Libertarians come out with leads me to strongly believe they have no real conception of society, furthermore, in my opinion this is a characteristic of American culture.

The American state and the "We're-number-1" super-nationalism it has carefully fostered in the US is the only glue that holds Americans together in some sort of substitute for society. One Katrina and we see how the culture over there degenerates into a rabble of gun-weilding possies and the undignified wretchedness of the socially disempowered and abandoned.

America was built initially by grumpy unsociable frontiersman and religious fanatics looking to get away from other goddamn people dag-nabit! Out into the wilderness they went, where they could do what they want without nobody that ain't kith or kin around to get in their way. The US has changed a lot since then but still seems largely unable to grasp fundamental concepts that most cultures in the rest of the world seem not to have forgotten. Thus, your Libertarian tends to be confused and puzzled by some concepts, to not see the point of some ideas that involve sharing their toys with others.

Another thing I've noticed about the US is that there's no class conscience, everyone over there from the working man and woman to millionaires seems to consider themselves Middle Class. This is a delusion that suits the ruling class well. In Europe the working class was able to grab the state by the throat after the war-years, and force it to damn-well do something for them, after filling the ranks of state armies and capitalist factories, the working class were able (through the pressure of communist, socialist, social democrat parties) to MAKE the state provide them with decent (decommodified) healthcare, housing and education and the right to eat.

In the US where everyone thinks they're Middle Class (bless em), none of this has happened. They seem to think the only possible use for the state is to collect taxes to pay for military adventures in far away lands and provide welfare for big business. So really if you think about it, Libertarianism is the only authentically dissident response one can expect of a culture in which certain concepts were defeated long ago or never really made it across the ocean in the first place.

Ron Paul for President 2012!
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 02:31:59 PM
 #7

In Europe the working class was able to grab the state by the throat after the war-years, and ... MAKE the state provide them with decent (decommodified) healthcare, housing and education and the right to eat.

...thereby dooming them to miserable lives of semi-poverty and blocking them from fulfilling their potential.

There are plenty of statistics showing that people who receive government benefits have lower job satisfaction, lower educational attainment, poorer health, shorter lifespan, are more likely to be in prison, etc. Some of these are quite good controlled studies (e.g. of families on opposite sides of the same street who happen to be in different towns and therefore qualify for different government "benefits").

However, time is short and I'm not going to dig out the references right now. I accept that this makes this post fairly unconvincing.
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1618
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 01, 2011, 02:41:54 PM
 #8

In Europe the working class was able to grab the state by the throat after the war-years, and ... MAKE the state provide them with decent (decommodified) healthcare, housing and education and the right to eat.

...thereby dooming them to miserable lives of semi-poverty and blocking them from fulfilling their potential.

There are plenty of statistics showing that people who receive government benefits have lower job satisfaction, lower educational attainment, poorer health, shorter lifespan, are more likely to be in prison, etc. Some of these are quite good controlled studies (e.g. of families on opposite sides of the same street who happen to be in different towns and therefore qualify for different government "benefits").

However, time is short and I'm not going to dig out the references right now. I accept that this makes this post fairly unconvincing.

And  yet, somehow, the Nordic countries consistently rank high in education, health and life satisfaction studies, despite having rather generous welfare programs.

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 02:55:08 PM
 #9

...Nordic countries consistently rank high...
This is because the Nordic countries don't waste a huge amount of their wealth on overseas warfare.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 06:29:49 PM
 #10

Well that begs the obvious question, if a government collects taxes by "donation" for it to provide services, why not simply pay a company to provide those services instead? I can guarantee they'll be able to offer a much better service at a lower price than the government.

I've never seen a government do anything better than a private company (except mess up or waste money).

Governments, even the best of them are ineficient, and only manage to survive not by competition, but by banning competition, and forcing people to pay for it's services with tax. Once a tax becomes voluntary it ceases to be tax by definition.
   

Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were. With out centralizing "greed", there won't be oversight. Greed is a key part of all monetary systems, trying to eliminate it is futile. Proof, look at the BitCoin Miners.

Maybe a novel idea, 1 hour = 1 BTC(or what ever), period. All most all companies track ManHours. In theory all systems, if you limit profit, the only real need for money is to pay people for their work. Profit is the Greed factor. Rather than eliminate it, set it to a fixed value and share it among all in a company. For example: You want to buy a car: It takes 2000 ManHours to make the car, plus a 10% profit margin; total cost of car = 2200 BTC. The two hundred is spread among all who provided the 2000 ManHours evenly.

The current argument is that if you don't pay quality people more, you end up with low quality. I propose that is false. Look at it this way, Take a CEO's position. How many people would take the CEO's position if there was no increase in pay?  I see all the hands going up, because people realize it is a good position over being the janitor (even though the janitor makes the same). Why would anyone would anyone work harder if there is no incentive to do so, because you don't want to be in a lower position.

In reality a fair system would reward those that work harder and accomplish more, the guy sitting at his desk in the air conditioning shouldn't make more than the sweetshop worker.  The sweetshop worker should make more.

No more "Head" work, or I am a "Harvard" Grad, or hmm "MIT" grad. The smartest man in the world is stupid unless he utilizes the knowledge. You would have the comfortable job because you are capable of performing it.  Pieces of paper mean nothing from universities. This is seen everywhere. Universities hoard knowledge and sell it to the highest bidder rather than provide free knowledge and award those who "can" utilize the knowledge. Take a look at the l33t Hax0r's. Usually "uneducated" but very smart because they are driven toward understanding knowledge and then utilizing it. I find it hilarious that they still sell new math text books every year for public schools, like the answer to 2+2=4 might have changed. Except for the change in knowledge, it has remained the same year to year. Textbooks could be PDF'ed and given out for free or close to it. But no, lets hoard it, repackage it, and resell it.

Sorry got carried away for a bit. Anyways, a fair system of Taxing the system should be built into the system. It could even be a voted system. Have everybody put a tax rate into the program. After the distribution of the P2P blocks, the tax rate could be computed through a statistical mean average. Value of the vote is depended on the transactions conducted through unique IP's. Or something like such.

That way everyone can contribute to deciding tax increases and the elusive mythical "tax decreases".  Don't you just love when the government increases your taxes ( ie. health care) and then gives you a tax break of a lessor amount (extending bush tax) while calling it a tax cut.  Hmm...  Pay me $100 but you get to keep $20. Hey thanx for the tax cut. "Sheeple"

OK, my rant is over, sorry.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Sultan
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 214
Merit: 100


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 06:40:52 PM
 #11

Whatever the government uses to tax cash-in-hand jobs, this is the way they will track taxes.

Back to the original point, being that governments will indeed want their tax, and the only solution is that we will revert to voluntary payments. Every company is strictly audited, taxing anything that comes out etc.

It would be the same.

Fair enough you can still do "BitCoin-in-hand" jobs, but if there if you apply for a job and there's a 6 year gap in your employment, they will ask. "were you unemployed all this time?" then you go, "yeah I was" they go "who by?" and u say who. THEN they will ask that employer how much tax you paid, and if you haven't, they will make you catch up.

Simples

http://images.onbux.com/banner.gif
I then use the money to buy BitCoins. You can too!
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 08:45:56 PM
 #12

...thereby dooming them to miserable lives of semi-poverty and blocking them from fulfilling their potential.
Dude, something tells me you don't live in europe - you are deluded: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_with_Life_Index  The U.S. is doing quite well too, but I think you might want to moderate your statement about "miserable lives of semi poverty".

In reality a fair system would reward those that work harder and accomplish more, the guy sitting at his desk in the air conditioning shouldn't make more than the sweetshop worker.  The sweetshop worker should make more.
Pieces of paper mean nothing from universities. This is seen everywhere. Universities hoard knowledge and sell it to the highest bidder rather than provide free knowledge and award those who "can" utilize the knowledge.
But if skilled labour is in shortage with respect to unskilled labour, then any reasonable market will pay a higher price for it.  Although, lately, I understand there are plenty of PhDs working the till in McDonalds all over the U.S. - can anyone confirm that?  So even though a sweatshop worker works hard, he's competing with many many others for the same job, unlike the air conditioned guy.  And, sorry, I would hate a CEO's job, even if it paid me twice what I'm currently earning (and I ain't earning much by my country's standard).  Just the idea of having to wear a suit & tie everyday... [shudder].

Tell you what, though, you're right about greed.  I read an article a short while ago about greed & capitalism being bedfellows.  I wasn't sure if the argument has since been refuted, but I understand that, irrespective of that, people are happy when their wealth and income are comparable to the national average.  Therefore... large wealth or income inequalities cause social unrest and greed, because everyone wants to be as rich as the rich ones they know ("keeping up with the joneses"), but not everyone can.  Any comments, libertarians?

Something tells me you don't have a piece of paper from a university.  While I agree that many universites are a sham, and many decent universities have courses that are a sham, I think there are still plenty of decent, real, qualifications to be obtained.  I suspect that the problem lies in the fact that many universites' funding are tied to the number of students, so therefore universities have turned into graduate factories with little care for how those graduates fare in the real world (e.g. PhDs working McD).  E.g. degree in "web design"Huh  By the time you graduate, the web will have completely changed and all you learned will be useless - if you do decide to go to university, make sure your degree teaches you critical thinking, problem solving, how to be adaptable, and how to learn (i.e. instead of just making you learn stuff, you need to learn *how to learn*, so when you finish univ. you can continue learning).

Lastly, check out mit opencourseware, or do a search for free university courses on google.  They're wonderful and I've used them.  Universities aren't hoarding knowledge so much anymore.  They'll give you all the knowledge you want for free, but they'll still make you pay for that little piece of paper.

EDIT, for Kiba :-)
TL;DR (whatever that means):
1. Europe ain't that bad.
2. Skill shortage commands higher price.
3. Greed is nasty.  Is it inherent to capitalism, or just a result of severe social inequality?
4. I agree, many universities and university degrees are useless, but there are some good ones still.  Look for these qualities (see above).
5. Check out free online university courses, they're great.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 08:49:48 PM
 #13

Will people stop creating all those essay length posts so I can digest whatever you're trying to get across?

ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 09:35:16 PM
 #14

Dude, something tells me you don't live in europe - you are deluded
Yes I live in Europe.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 09:41:24 PM
 #15

Dude, something tells me you don't live in europe - you are deluded
Yes I live in Europe.
Do you live a miserable life of semi-poverty?  Perhaps you live in eastern Europe where things are not so cosy?
Anonymous
Guest

March 01, 2011, 09:41:57 PM
 #16

What's poverty?
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 09:46:23 PM
 #17

Happiness is an emotional state, a state of mind. Why should we care about such measure when we can just administer the population with dopamine?

Greed? For some people, it's nasty. For me, I am totally fine with that. Greed for greater lifespan, for intellectual enjoyment, for things...What's wrong with that?

Yet people forget the other sin, envy. Envy is to me, the nastiest of sins. If greed is simply the desire of wealth, than envy is based on what you don't have and hating other guys for being wealthier than you.

Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 09:48:49 PM
 #18

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

Demonstrably wrong, look up Lysander Spooner.
Anonymous
Guest

March 01, 2011, 09:52:34 PM
 #19

I think wb3 either came from r/politics on Reddit or is a master troll.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 09:57:27 PM
 #20

I think wb3 either came from r/politics on Reddit or is a master troll.

Indistinguishable in either case.

ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 10:18:45 PM
 #21

Do you live a miserable life of semi-poverty?
No I don't.

I was discussing welfare recipients, the dependent classes whose housing, education and sometimes food are provided by the state. They are the ones who live a miserable life of semi-poverty.

I am less wealthy than some welfare beneficiaries, but infinitely better off.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 11:20:00 PM
 #22


Something tells me you don't have a piece of paper from a university.  While I agree that many universites are a sham, and many decent universities have courses that are a sham, I think there are still plenty of decent, real, qualifications to be obtained.

Actually you might be surprised. The point being made was there is to much emphasis on the paper and less on the actions. We have lost the focus on that, (Einstein, Dave Thomas, etc...) Why should it cost $500,000 to teach someone at MIT? When if they open up the classes via Internet and Moderate exams through Public Libraries, there would be a whole bunch of well educated people in the world. Labs would be a trick, but that can be solved. They are selling exclusivity, but for the betterment of society, education should be as close to free as possible. Don't hoard knowledge, spread it. Time to accomplish the degree should be irrelevant also, do a class here and there, then take an exam. If it takes you 10 years then so be it, if it take you 2 the great.

To be honest, a vast majority of skills learned in school are not used IRL. Companies are slowly realizing this, and a person with Certifications form Authorities are holding more weight.  MIT Graduate, or a guy down the street with all the Certifications.  Because, the history course in college is becoming less to an IT Manager than the guy that has a proven ability of knowledge through certifications. And, if I run into another Harvard grad the expects the world given to him because of the degree, well nuff said.

Did you ever notice that the really great accomplishments and deeds are usually done by people that didn't need a degree.  Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas, and on and on and on.  Degree's are for possible wanna be's and nepotistic societies. Knowledge is for Everybody.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 01, 2011, 11:22:47 PM
 #23

Why should it cost $500,000 to teach someone at MIT?

Because the government monopolizes student loans and subsidizes our joke of a university system.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 01, 2011, 11:48:50 PM
 #24

I think wb3 either came from r/politics on Reddit or is a master troll.

I have a weird philosophy seeded in realism and logic. I hold some liberal ideas and conservative ideas and try to find the solutions to hard problems.  For example: Capitalism is the most logical and natural system to have with limited resources, while also providing the best hinderance to progress because things that should be invented won't be invented.  Government's need to fill that gap. Individual's won't.  But they need to do it at an acceptable pace and be flexible to changes. Democracy holds that back but is the most fair system. The Irony is everywhere. Speaking of Irony, (and I am not being mean, just think about these positions:)


Pro Gay --> Believes in Evolution    ( Makes no sense )
Anti Gay --> Doesn't Believe in Evolution (Makes more sense)
Atheist --> Believes in Science --> But has no 'First Cause'   (A belief in 'first cause' without out proof of 'first cause')
Religious --> Believes in Science --> (makes more sense, first cause explained without proof)
Asocial --> But tells everyone about it, and doesn't like when people don't listen. (Get real)
Social --> And tells everyone about it (OK)
Anti-War --> Violently protests (yea right)
For War --> But not for Tax increases.

I might be a Troll, but I am not sheep. I think on my own, make mistakes and blame no one else for them. I am for privacy and less government, while being for conservative morals, and finances. I don't care what others do (Gay, Lesbian, Flower child, or what ever) as long as their behaviors' do no harm to society.  I believe in Evolution, hmm.  But I am a realist. I believe that laws that come closest to Natural Laws are the best and longest living. I try not to spout off a position without thinking what that really means and I try to avoid hypocrisy while realizing it is a natural occurrence. Quantum Physics.

I hope I didn't offend anyone because I also believe in Free Speech (or Press) in this case.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 12:00:15 AM
 #25

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 12:03:46 AM
 #26



Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. 

This is an assertion, and a disgusting one, with no support at all. What awful thing would happen if governments stopped killing millions of people? Why do you think war is necessary?

And if it is necessary then stop calling it evil. Nothing that is necessary makes the world worse than it could otherwise be.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 12:19:44 AM
 #27



Governments goto war like no company ever did. Not saying war is good, but sometimes it is a necessary evil. 

This is an assertion, and a disgusting one, with no support at all. What awful thing would happen if governments stopped killing millions of people? Why do you think war is necessary?

And if it is necessary then stop calling it evil. Nothing that is necessary makes the world worse than it could otherwise be.

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.  This goes back to a truism. "The only rights you have are the rights you can defend."

 It is a Natural Law, all species use it. Why should we be different?  Unless....... Hmm. (The only way this would stop will be the realization of a God that imposes his laws on us)  But as long as living things live and die, survival of the fittest will be in our nature and the most practical method is WAR for groups of people. We still form groups, I think. 

WAR seems very bad when a majority have money and food, but when that changes WAR starts looking better.

Evil might have been the wrong word, but it seems to fit our dark side.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 12:25:14 AM
 #28

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 12:28:17 AM
 #29

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.

Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 12:34:14 AM
 #30

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where.
Sections may not have gotten phone lines nor paved roads without government force, but who says the demands for such desires would not be met by services that could be of similar, greater and voluntary means?


The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone).  Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

Define fairness again. Why is it fair for the government to take more of my property so John Doe can download his animu faster (aka FiOS)? Tongue

In the end, the government is supplementing mere whims and desires that are perversed into supposed rights and needs. Until you can define and reason the government's true purpose and where it's most effective, I don't see this argument being productive.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:10:21 AM
 #31

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.



Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, libertarian, political philosopher, Deist, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government.

I did, and while I have some Libertarian leanings, the existence of UPS and FedEx seem to make it moot. At the same time the cheapest way to mail something is the USPS. The USPS (when utilized as invented) is a NonProfit organization. It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less. I can send several heavy books using the "semi-secrete" Media Rate for next to nothing. The problem that happened to the USPS is the same across all US agencies. Public Sector Unions (oops ...) No one if they believe in a fair and "libertarian" market would believe in a public sector union because they would suck the life out of the private sector until collapse.

With that being said, I would drastically cut a lot of government services and regulations as Lysander would have.

As far as his thoughts on Government control of Money, there does need to be some oversight (maybe not over money but of actions that affect is distribution). 

Every been to India, while it denies it there is a Caste system. America even has to some degree a Nepotistic system for those with power and wealth. "Its not what you know but who you know" holds weight especially without some oversight.

And there is a point to which one can gain enough wealth that it would not be physically possible to spend it.

This might shock some but I do not believe there should be compounding interest. It will be the ruin to all economies even when it is at 0.1%  The math doesn't lie. Put $100 bucks into a bank and with time you will bring down the economy. Check out what Bejamin Franklin did with his $100 dollars. If Philadelphia didn't use the money he would have broke the bank.

All interest should be simple.  The Credit Card companies are destroying the monetary system because they are preying on our human nature and routines. It is legalized stealing but we are stupid for signing up for it.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 01:13:19 AM
 #32

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.



It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less.

No, it doesn't.
Steve
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 868
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 01:15:57 AM
 #33

Was ot just me or did other people tune out when the original post degenerated into terrible, nationalistic generalizations and stereotypes?

(gasteve on IRC) Does your website accept cash? https://bitpay.com
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 01:20:40 AM
 #34

Was ot just me or did other people tune out when the original post degenerated into terrible, nationalistic generalizations and stereotypes?
I lost the energy for these statist arguments a long time ago.
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:27:23 AM
 #35

So, you consider yourself utilitarian, eh? I'm somewhat one myself but in a more destructive way.

And on the brighter side, governments will provide improvements and/or services that no company would ever do because of profit reasons. Roads in rural areas, telephone to rural areas, government "cheese" as it were.

This is far from a utilitarian and realistic thought.

A vast section of our country would not have telephone lines or paved roads if it was not for Governments. Ma Bell wasn't going to spend millions of dollars for John Doe to get (1) telephone line in the middle of no where. 

The problem is that they now misuse the money. They still collect for it but steal it for other purposes rather than reinvest it for the next good cause. (Maybe FiOs to everyone). 

Governments have a purpose, BUT they must be watched very closely to ensure fairness and route our corruption.

You didn't do even a cursory google of Lysander Spooner, did you.



Lysander Spooner (January 19, 1808 – May 14, 1887) was an American individualist anarchist, libertarian, political philosopher, Deist, abolitionist, supporter of the labor movement, legal theorist, and entrepreneur of the nineteenth century. He is also known for competing with the U.S. Post Office with his American Letter Mail Company, which was forced out of business by the United States government.

I did, and while I have some Libertarian leanings, the existence of UPS and FedEx seem to make it moot. At the same time the cheapest way to mail something is the USPS. The USPS (when utilized as invented) is a NonProfit organization. It makes exactly what it needs to make and not more and not less. I can send several heavy books using the "semi-secrete" Media Rate for next to nothing. The problem that happened to the USPS is the same across all US agencies. Public Sector Unions (oops ...) No one if they believe in a fair and "libertarian" market would believe in a public sector union because they would suck the life out of the private sector until collapse.

With that being said, I would drastically cut a lot of government services and regulations as Lysander would have.

As far as his thoughts on Government control of Money, there does need to be some oversight (maybe not over money but of actions that affect is distribution). 

Every been to India, while it denies it there is a Caste system. America even has to some degree a Nepotistic system for those with power and wealth. "Its not what you know but who you know" holds weight especially without some oversight.

And there is a point to which one can gain enough wealth that it would not be physically possible to spend it.

This might shock some but I do not believe there should be compounding interest. It will be the ruin to all economies even when it is at 0.1%  The math doesn't lie. Put $100 bucks into a bank and with time you will bring down the economy. Check out what Bejamin Franklin did with his $100 dollars. If Philadelphia didn't use the money he would have broke the bank.

All interest should be simple.  The Credit Card companies are destroying the monetary system because they are preying on our human nature and routines. It is legalized stealing but we are stupid for signing up for it.

The point was that the government kept blathering on about how no company would service the rural areas of the United States (and they meant really rural - across the continent with no railroads or roads, barely even paths to communities). He proved them wrong, by proving better service at cheaper prices than the government.

And UPS and Fedex and such are all paying the USPS to be in business, and the purpose of that is to make it so that third party carriers cannot truly compete with the USPS, since they must pay a fee to the USPS that makes their prices at least as high as the USPS'.

kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:45:50 AM
 #36

To the government, there's no such thing as profit and loss so they don't know zip about economical resource allocation. There's only tax dollars spending it. The return is calculated as how many political suppoters you have now versus how many angry citizens you have now.

Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 04:47:11 AM
 #37

I will admit, without doing any significant research that governments do conduct war better than any private company ever could. When every citizen of your country is your slave how could you not?

What with being able to take private persons property by force to pay for wars, to be able to force private persons to fight (conscription) I find it difficult for a company to be able to compete with such a thing. And I think in this case competition usually means fighting against.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 06:04:15 AM
 #38

So it is necessary to have war because if there isn't war then there will be war anyway? Is that a fair summation?

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 06:34:11 AM
 #39

So it is necessary to have war because if there isn't war then there will be war anyway? Is that a fair summation?

Sadly, Yes.   I would note: Necessary to be prepared for WAR. Just don't go to war for the sake of war. That would be regression.

When people are willing to let themselves and their families starve to death while others eat, then there might be hope for the elimination of War. 

An Evolutionist might call WAR - a Reallocation of Adaptive Space and Resources. It is a natural event when pressured.

The number 1 motivator in this behavior is food and water.

Want to see something freaky.  Overlay the cost of food increases in the world with violence rates based on income per capita. (ability to buy food)

A more recent example: See who imports the most wheat in the world and then the cost increases in wheat for that region. All you have to do is turn on the news.  The number 1 importer of wheat is Egypt. And at an average of $2/day income, the ability to eat was compromised. When you compare price of food to ability to buy food with violence rates, it looks like a different world.

Guess what country we just "give" food to with very little cost?   North Korea, don't want them getting any ideas when hungry.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 10:39:24 AM
 #40

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.

If Country A doesn't have a government, it's damned near impossible for Country B to take it over by force. Wars generally work by one government taking over the institutions of another government (military, police, administration etc).

If country A doesn't have a government, what is country B going to do? Separately take over every individual home, farm and business? Country B will go for easier targets instead.

Now let's suppose that I'm wrong, and Country B does try to take over Country A. Naturally the citizens of Country A are going to forcefully resist. If Country A defends itself, this does not conflict with it being anti-war. Self-defence is totally different from the initiation of war, because self-defence aims to neutralise the war, not start it.

Whenever a country is genuinely threatened, there has never been a shortage of highly-motivated volunteers to defend it, and they are likely to overcome the less-motivated force of the attacker.

In addition to all of the death due to war, governments have killed more people outside of war than in the battlefields of war, at least during the 20th century.
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 11:14:38 AM
 #41

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.

If Country A doesn't have a government, it's damned near impossible for Country B to take it over by force. Wars generally work by one government taking over the institutions of another government (military, police, administration etc).

If country A doesn't have a government, what is country B going to do? Separately take over every individual home, farm and business? Country B will go for easier targets instead.

Now let's suppose that I'm wrong, and Country B does try to take over Country A. Naturally the citizens of Country A are going to forcefully resist. If Country A defends itself, this does not conflict with it being anti-war. Self-defence is totally different from the initiation of war, because self-defence aims to neutralise the war, not start it.

Whenever a country is genuinely threatened, there has never been a shortage of highly-motivated volunteers to defend it, and they are likely to overcome the less-motivated force of the attacker.

In addition to all of the death due to war, governments have killed more people outside of war than in the battlefields of war, at least during the 20th century.


+1

Afghanistan has no government and every empire has destroyed itself by trying to defeat the country in war.

The US is just the latest. Maybe the fact bitcoin has no government behind it means it will do the same to any government that tries to subjugate it ?
no to the gold cult
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 140
Merit: 100



View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:05:21 PM
 #42

Not that I like war, I do not.  Let's take an example: If Country A is anti-war, and Country B wants A's stuff and resources they will take it when the chips hit the road. (A) won't do anything to stop the take over of by (B).  But if (A) defends itself then it is not anti-war.

If Country A doesn't have a government, it's damned near impossible for Country B to take it over by force. Wars generally work by one government taking over the institutions of another government (military, police, administration etc).

If country A doesn't have a government, what is country B going to do? Separately take over every individual home, farm and business? Country B will go for easier targets instead.

I've heard it said that this is why the Roman Empire stopped at the forests of Germany and the hills of Scotland. In Europe at that time these areas were all non-state tribal societies with no political infrastructure for Rome to take over or demand tributes from etc.
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1618
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:17:13 PM
 #43


Pro Gay --> Believes in Evolution    ( Makes no sense )
Anti Gay --> Doesn't Believe in Evolution (Makes more sense)
Opinion on homosexuality is quite unrelated to one's opinion on evolution. Did you know the odds of a mother's male offspring being gay appear to increase as the number of previous male offspring born to that mother increases? This may be a simple accident due to the mother's body learning to "defend" against a foetus, or it might be a phenomenon driven by selective pressure. Maybe, in a tribal society, it is useful to have uncles who do not go off to have offspring of their own.

Atheist --> Believes in Science --> But has no 'First Cause'   (A belief in 'first cause' without out proof of 'first cause')
Religious --> Believes in Science --> (makes more sense, first cause explained without proof)
Few Atheists who believe in science and actually understand the scientific process to any degree have any firm belief on first causes. There are theories which may or may not be proven false in the future. Understanding  how things began isn't necessarily relevant to understanding how things work, anyway, depending on the level of granularity  you want in your explanations of the universe.

Asocial --> But tells everyone about it, and doesn't like when people don't listen. (Get real)
Social --> And tells everyone about it (OK)
Anti-War --> Violently protests (yea right)
For War --> But not for Tax increases.

These seem to be strawmen. I see nothing worth commenting on.

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:20:40 PM
 #44

Did you ever notice that the really great accomplishments and deeds are usually done by people that didn't need a degree.  Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Dave Thomas, and on and on and on.  Degree's are for possible wanna be's and nepotistic societies. Knowledge is for Everybody.
You have got to be kidding me.  These people became popular because they were exceptions to the "rule" - and that's why they're rich and popular.   Man, you wouldn't even have your computer if it wasn't for the countless scientists, engineers, technicians and so on, that worked to create computers, networks, LCD monitors, electronic circuits, microchips, transistors, resistors...  Go back as far as you like, right back to ancient Greece and its academies.  Steam trains, radio waves, periodic table, electro-magnetism, microwaves, space travel, GPS, tooth fillings, eye glasses, medicine, pharmacology, need I go on?  Bill Gates was obviously a smart and talented fellow who had the right idea at the right time and the ability to carry it through.  But I'd bet my right eye that he'd be neither rich nor well-known now if he hadn't had a world full of graduate computer scientists to do most of the work for him.  I'm not saying that uneducated people can't have great ideas, on the contrary often you need an "outsider" to bring about a change in paradigm, but don't be so foolish or arrogant as to ignore all the developments in all areas of science and humanities brought about by normal people with normal degrees and ph.ds.

And, you know what, knowledge is *not* for everyone.  Some people aren't interested, and someone will always have to clean the streets and the toilets.  It's a waste of time everybody studying microbiology (or whatever) - you'll just end up with microbiologist janitors on a janitor's wage - it's a waste of time and effort.  Those who are educated more (and certifiably so) get paid more, so in order to get additional certified education, you need to pay.  That's how it's always been, that's how it should be, and that's how it'll always be.  Any society needs a wide range of skills at all levels.  I *do* have a degree, but before you call me elitist I want you to tell me who *you* would make sweep the streets and why that doesn't make *you* elitist.

That said, I wouldn't withhold education just because someone couldn't afford it.  But they'd have to demonstrate some reason why they deserve the scholarship 'cos no society can afford to waste time and resources giving a higher education to just anyone who asks for it, particularly if they can't effectively use it.  And make no mistake, with bitcoins, you'll still have to pay for your education.  Even worse, I'd have a strong feeling that any free-market school or university will use as much currently freely-available material as possible, but make it's students pay dearly.  Maximize profit, minimize investment.  Right guys?
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 01:38:05 PM
 #45

I'm not saying that uneducated people can't have great ideas
There's a big difference between education and formal qualifications.

I'm generalizing for sure, but formal qualifications tend to show that you've been through a sausage machine and emerged as a quality-controlled sausage. An education, on the other hand, can give you the tools you need to achieve great things. Sometimes you can get a great education as a side-effect of getting a formal qualification; sometimes you get a great education in other ways.

Of possible interest:
Do grades really matter? A growing body of evidence suggests grades don't predict success -- C+ students are the ones who end up running the world.

Also I have seen somewhere statistics of the S&P500 showing that companies headed by an MBA did worse than average.

Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 01:50:38 PM
 #46

I'm not saying that uneducated people can't have great ideas
There's a big difference between education and formal qualifications.

I'm generalizing for sure, but formal qualifications tend to show that you've been through a sausage machine and emerged as a quality-controlled sausage. An education, on the other hand, can give you the tools you need to achieve great things. Sometimes you can get a great education as a side-effect of getting a formal qualification; sometimes you get a great education in other ways.

Of possible interest:
Do grades really matter? A growing body of evidence suggests grades don't predict success -- C+ students are the ones who end up running the world.

Also I have seen somewhere statistics of the S&P500 showing that companies headed by an MBA did worse than average.


Well, I've been a C student most of my high school career. This certainly lightens things up a bit but it's not like I haven't known this. : P
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 02:11:44 PM
 #47

Well, I've been a C student most of my high school career.
I was totally inconsistent at University. I got High Distinctions in the subjects that interested me and were well-taught, and Fail in the others. Not much in-between.

It took me 7 years to get a 3-year BSc, but in addition to the degree I got a great education so if I had my time over, i would do it the same way again.
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 02:19:16 PM
 #48

Well, I've been a C student most of my high school career.
I was totally inconsistent at University. I got High Distinctions in the subjects that interested me and were well-taught, and Fail in the others. Not much in-between.

It took me 7 years to get a 3-year BSc, but in addition to the degree I got a great education so if I had my time over, i would do it the same way again.

I can't imagine how much those 7 years cost you unless you aren't American.
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 03:59:35 PM
 #49

I can't imagine how much those 7 years cost you unless you aren't American.
I don't know any country where the cost of university fees are higher than the opportunity cost of not being in the workforce. That's the real cost.

I worked about 25 hours per week to finance my education.
Anonymous
Guest

March 02, 2011, 04:09:55 PM
 #50

I can't imagine how much those 7 years cost you unless you aren't American.
I don't know any country where the cost of university fees are higher than the opportunity cost of not being in the workforce. That's the real cost.

I worked about 25 hours per week to finance my education.
It's a cruel overpriced joke.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 08:30:50 PM
 #51

On the Afghanistan issue.

If a country has no government you can conquer it. Ask the American Indians. It is not that the country has no government, it is that the country has little to no resources.

If they had 10 billion barrels of Oil, they would have been conquered and assimilated, or would have had a strong government. Our mistake was that we didn't look at history. I bet the Russian's are laughing their asses off.  Grin

A little of topic but since you point it out:

Quote
Opinion on homosexuality is quite unrelated to one's opinion on evolution. Did you know the odds of a mother's male offspring being gay appear to increase as the number of previous male offspring born to that mother increases? This may be a simple accident due to the mother's body learning to "defend" against a foetus, or it might be a phenomenon driven by selective pressure. Maybe, in a tribal society, it is useful to have uncles who do not go off to have offspring of their own
.

No, I did not know that.

But the question isn't:

Quote
Opinion on homosexuality is quite unrelated to one's opinion on evolution.

It is:

Opinion on evolution is quite related to Homosexuality.

How can one coming from an evolutionary point of view explain it?

If Nature made you Gay, what is Nature saying:  So this is to protect future generations so your line in Nature is cut off.
So it is good for Society as a whole that a few die off to protect the future.

No matter which angle you come at it from, Nature or even Social Behavior is saying you will not continue your line. The net outcome is a negative for the individual.

Nature or Nurture the outcome is the same: A dead end branch on the evolutionary tree.

I in no means suggest any type of violence because of this, Personally I don't care. Especially since I am not gay. I kind of wished that every other man was. Leaves a lot of women for me, but sports bars wouldn't seem the same Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 09:55:17 PM
 #52


I've never seen a government do anything better than a private company (except mess up or waste money).

Governments, even the best of them are ineficient, and only manage to survive not by competition, but by banning competition, and forcing people to pay for it's services with tax. Once a tax becomes voluntary it ceases to be tax by definition.
   

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?


Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 02, 2011, 10:17:14 PM
 #53

On the Afghanistan issue.

If a country has no government you can conquer it. Ask the American Indians. It is not that the country has no government, it is that the country has little to no resources.

If they had 10 billion barrels of Oil, they would have been conquered and assimilated, or would have had a strong government. Our mistake was that we didn't look at history. I bet the Russian's are laughing their asses off.  Grin

A little of topic but since you point it out:

Quote
Opinion on homosexuality is quite unrelated to one's opinion on evolution. Did you know the odds of a mother's male offspring being gay appear to increase as the number of previous male offspring born to that mother increases? This may be a simple accident due to the mother's body learning to "defend" against a foetus, or it might be a phenomenon driven by selective pressure. Maybe, in a tribal society, it is useful to have uncles who do not go off to have offspring of their own
.

No, I did not know that.

But the question isn't:

Quote
Opinion on homosexuality is quite unrelated to one's opinion on evolution.

It is:

Opinion on evolution is quite related to Homosexuality.

How can one coming from an evolutionary point of view explain it?

If Nature made you Gay, what is Nature saying:  So this is to protect future generations so your line in Nature is cut off.
So it is good for Society as a whole that a few die off to protect the future.

No matter which angle you come at it from, Nature or even Social Behavior is saying you will not continue your line. The net outcome is a negative for the individual.

Nature or Nurture the outcome is the same: A dead end branch on the evolutionary tree.

I in no means suggest any type of violence because of this, Personally I don't care. Especially since I am not gay. I kind of wished that every other man was. Leaves a lot of women for me, but sports bars wouldn't seem the same Grin


I've heard convincing arguments that most, if not all, people are bisexual. Personally I find it odd that people restrict themselves to one gender but whatever.

zaxx
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 6
Merit: 0


View Profile WWW
March 02, 2011, 11:25:59 PM
 #54

I think this is a very interesting subject. The one of tax revenue and services.

I completely agree that private companies do a better job. So the big issue comes down
to what system deals with the people that cant afford the services they need.

(i certainly dont think wars are necessary, unless you are a bank that makes money from lending,
in which case wars are highly profitable)

I expect over time we will replace governments with many diverse social networks. But i always think those
'networks' will have representatives that speak for the people in the network. But i dont think reps will govern
the people , that is a concept i think will die out in our lifetime.

I like the idea of basic minimum income that is paid out to all members of a network

In fact I found bitcoin thinking about this subject when i wrote a blog on it here http://servanlog.blogspot.com/2010/12/state-is-dead-roll-on-global-free.html

Dobry Den
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 41
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 01:36:17 AM
 #55


And  yet, somehow, the Nordic countries consistently rank high in education, health and life satisfaction studies, despite having rather generous welfare programs.

Yet people are blinded by the over-glorification of countries that aren't even half the population of New York City.

Less people should be concerned about what countries beat America in whatever index, and more concerned about the direness of a world where the USA is only consistently beaten out by fractionally-sized nations.
Nefario
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 602
Merit: 500


GLBSE Support support@glbse.com


View Profile WWW
March 03, 2011, 02:38:23 AM
 #56

The best example of statism often brough out is Sweden, much of this is however a myth.

The Sweden Myth
Sweden: Poorer Than You Think
Stagnating socialist Sweden

OK, a lot of the people there like doing things that way, fine for them. Heroin addicts really REALLY like Heroin, doesn't mean it's good for everyone, and pointing to them and saying "Look how much they love that stuff, they're so happy" is not a good reason to start using it.

PGP key id at pgp.mit.edu 0xA68F4B7C

To get help and support for GLBSE please email support@glbse.com
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 12:06:59 PM
 #57

There's a big difference between education and formal qualifications. <snip> ...sometimes you get a great education in other ways.

Unfortunately, I agree that modern universities are little more than graduate factories - I wrote about it earlier (see this quote below).  But there are still some quality universities with quality courses out there, perhaps that's what you mean by some formal qualifications also giving you a decent education.
if you do decide to go to university...

...C+ students are the ones who end up running the world.
...companies headed by an MBA did worse than average.
Interesting, and not so surprising - top university performers are often the type that do great in examinations but not so good in the real world.  But I'd really prefer to read the articles to judge properly and I simply don't have time to do that.  Lots of people make big mistakes with statistics, even statisticians, and I always take a large grain of salt with any headline that says "Objects of type A are x% more likely than those of type B to exhibit property C" or similar.

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 
Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?
I heard (by word-of-mouth only) that in ancient Rome, private fire brigades existed.  Whenever there was a fire they would rush there as quick as possible and negotiate a price on the spot before trying to extinguish the fire.  "Fine big house sir...".   I agree with littleshop, private police forces are just bad news waiting to happen - think about it, in order to minimize costs, they'd employ the roughest toughest street brawlers with as little sense of morality as possible - punch up first, ask questions later would be the order of the day.  And it wouldn't be long before the strongest private police force turned into a private army, and then into a dictator's army.  The libertarians need a system of conflict resolution, but it'd be a cold day in hell before a libertarian imposes regulations on the maximum size of any single corporate entity.  "If they're that big, it means they're doing a good job, right?"
bsgns20071101
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 4
Merit: 0


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 12:18:36 PM
 #58

very good
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 12:48:36 PM
 #59

Quote
I heard (by word-of-mouth only) that in ancient Rome, private fire brigades existed.  Whenever there was a fire they would rush there as quick as possible and negotiate a price on the spot before trying to extinguish the fire.  "Fine big house sir...".   I agree with littleshop, private police forces are just bad news waiting to happen - think about it, in order to minimize costs, they'd employ the roughest toughest street brawlers with as little sense of morality as possible - punch up first, ask questions later would be the order of the day.  And it wouldn't be long before the strongest private police force turned into a private army, and then into a dictator's army.  The libertarians need a system of conflict resolution, but it'd be a cold day in hell before a libertarian imposes regulations on the maximum size of any single corporate entity.  "If they're that big, it means they're doing a good job, right?"


In today's world and the decline in House Values, people would pay to have them NOT put out the fire.  Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 03, 2011, 02:20:06 PM
 #60


I've never seen a government do anything better than a private company (except mess up or waste money).

Governments, even the best of them are ineficient, and only manage to survive not by competition, but by banning competition, and forcing people to pay for it's services with tax. Once a tax becomes voluntary it ceases to be tax by definition.
   

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?


The immediate issue that I have with this statement, is that privately ran public safety organizations have existed in the US in the past, and in many places they still do.




"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'
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 02:35:58 PM
 #61

... privately ran public safety organizations have existed in the US in the past, and in many places they still do

Fire Brigades originated after the Great Fire of London as privately-run services provided by insurance companies. This gave them a very strong incentive to put out the fire as quickly as possible, to avoid the insurance payout. Only if you did not have fire insurance would you need to pay per fire.

To show that your building was insured and to facilitate the quickest response, you would attach to your building a fire mark provided by the insurance company.

You may hear it said that when there was a fire, several insurance companies would attend to see whose customer it was, then all but one would leave. However, this was obviously inefficient and the individual insurance companies adopted reciprocal arrangements, then later merged their firefighting operations into the London Fire Engine Establishment.

The government (specifically, London's Metropolitan Board of Works) took over the fire brigade in 1866.
Garrett Burgwardt
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 476
Merit: 251


View Profile
March 03, 2011, 02:49:01 PM
 #62

... privately ran public safety organizations have existed in the US in the past, and in many places they still do

Fire Brigades originated after the Great Fire of London as privately-run services provided by insurance companies. This gave them a very strong incentive to put out the fire as quickly as possible, to avoid the insurance payout. Only if you did not have fire insurance would you need to pay per fire.

To show that your building was insured and to facilitate the quickest response, you would attach to your building a fire mark provided by the insurance company.

You may hear it said that when there was a fire, several insurance companies would attend to see whose customer it was, then all but one would leave. However, this was obviously inefficient and the individual insurance companies adopted reciprocal arrangements, then later merged their firefighting operations into the London Fire Engine Establishment.

The government (specifically, London's Metropolitan Board of Works) took over the fire brigade in 1866.

Thanks for the link and overview - interesting and relevant to a paper I'm writing Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 03, 2011, 10:41:53 PM
 #63

Regulations benefit existing companies and drive out competition.

Private jails = most favoured and well connected . I doubt you would get a company that didn't have some sort of ties to the existing system starting one.

The full body scanners at airports ? The former head of homeland security has the contract........


Corporatism/soft fascism is alive and well.

error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 04:18:47 AM
 #64

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
FreeMoney
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1000


Strength in numbers


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 06:35:02 AM
 #65



Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost.  

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?


Eh, are you suggesting that if lives or buildings are lost or people are wrongly imprisoned by a system then that system should be ended? Because I can get behind that logic 100%. Let's do this in the morning.

Play Bitcoin Poker at sealswithclubs.eu. We're active and open to everyone.
ribuck
Donator
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826
Merit: 1003


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:19:02 AM
 #66

Because I can get behind that logic 100%.

Seconded.
rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1618
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 12:09:37 PM
 #67


Opinion on evolution is quite related to Homosexuality.

How can one coming from an evolutionary point of view explain it?
---clip---

I don't see the relevance of  your arguments, unless you're arguing we should only accept as reality things we like.  There is little evidence people choose to be homosexual. It seems to me sexuality is a spectrum, perhaps even a multidimensional grid, between the extremes of which we all fall somewhere, depending on the complex interactions of nature and nurture. Anyway, I digress.

If I understand your argument correctly, you are saying that if nature seems to be saying homosexuality is a disadvantage, the logical thing to do would be to be against homosexuality. There are two problems with this: Nature says no such thing - that is a human interpretation of it. Also, I do not believe it is very easy to change one's sexual orientation, especially at the extremes. Being against homosexuality is like being against rainy weather. One may not like it, but it exists and will continue to exist, whatever one thinks of it.

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 01:38:28 PM
 #68

In Europe the working class was able to grab the state by the throat after the war-years, and ... MAKE the state provide them with decent (decommodified) healthcare, housing and education and the right to eat.

...thereby dooming them to miserable lives of semi-poverty and blocking them from fulfilling their potential.

There are plenty of statistics showing that people who receive government benefits have lower job satisfaction, lower educational attainment, poorer health, shorter lifespan, are more likely to be in prison, etc. Some of these are quite good controlled studies (e.g. of families on opposite sides of the same street who happen to be in different towns and therefore qualify for different government "benefits").

However, time is short and I'm not going to dig out the references right now. I accept that this makes this post fairly unconvincing.

And  yet, somehow, the Nordic countries consistently rank high in education, health and life satisfaction studies, despite having rather generous welfare programs.

Well, most Nordic countries have privatized government programs (meaning private companies are payed by the government to provide services like school, health care, etc... No public employees). Its a mixed system. Also, there is petrol there.

And if you look the statistics the nordic countries are not that well off compared to the USA. The Nordic countries would be one of the poorest states (GDP per capita) if they joined the USA. Also, the nordic countries builded their industry during their more free market era. During the 80's they went more into social-democracy and went bankrupt. Since then the social-democrats were voted out of the government and changes towards more free market policies were implemented.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 01:48:17 PM
 #69

Homosexuality could confer a direct evolutionary advantage.  Let me think.  Imagine that there is a gene which predisposes its carriers to homosexuality.  The only way such a gene might survive is if it also disposes its carriers to care for the children of their siblings.  For example, someone already pointed out above that younger brothers tend more to homosexuality than older brothers.  Well, would it not make sense, then, that the younger brothers, not having children of their own, would tend to care for the children of their older brother?  So the children would have a higher survival rate and the gene could easily survive.

Even easier - imagine if having blue eyes meant you were more likely to be homosexual.  The advantage of blue eyes could outweigh the disadvantage of homosexuality, and so the gene would survive.

Gene survival is a funny thing.  Your genes don't care if *you* survive, or if *you* have children.  They only care that *they* propagate.  If your death is the best way to obtain that, then that gene will predispose you to dying in those circumstances where the gene's effects are expressed.  And I'm using the word "care" in the same sense as Dawkins does - I'm ascribing a sense of desire to a bunch of molecules (i.e. a "gene") that cannot desire anything.  And, since homosexuality still exists *despite* strong cultural bias against it, my guess is it does somehow confer an advantage to the genes concerned.  Not to the individuals that carry it, but to the genes.

After that, every society and every individual will decide for itself whether it finds homosexuality abhorrent or not.  Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for having red hair.  Oops.

Guys, this discussion has very definitely bifurcated.  From tax, we're now talking about tax, homosexuality, and safety & security.  It's like those conversations which take on a life of their own - starting from the concert you went to yesterday, you end up talking about pineapples.  Fascinating!
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 07:08:31 PM
 #70

Quote
So the children would have a higher survival rate and the gene could easily survive


But the host is doomed. Cause and Effect.

Quote
Gene survival is a funny thing.  Your genes don't care if *you* survive, or if *you* have children.  They only care that *they* propagate.  If your death is the best way to obtain that, then that gene will predispose you to dying in those circumstances where the gene's effects are expressed.  And I'm using the word "care" in the same sense as Dawkins does - I'm ascribing a sense of desire to a bunch of molecules (i.e. a "gene") that cannot desire anything.  And, since homosexuality still exists *despite* strong cultural bias against it, my guess is it does somehow confer an advantage to the genes concerned.  Not to the individuals that carry it, but to the genes.

That is a very good argument, one I haven't heard before.

Assuming the Nature Argument:

Agreed, the Genes seek to continue, (they could carless if it has a positive or negative effect on the whole) (Like criminals or anarchists  Grin).
Your assumption is that they confer an Advantage, they could also be conferring a DisAdvantage, they don't know it is leading to extinction. Sort of like Lemmings running off the cliff. Or it just part of the specification process, it will work or it won't. In the past, before the construct of Abstract Thought, one would not be able to look down the road. As of right now, it looks like that branch is going no where. But we make that conclusion from what knowledge we currently have. It could also be a form of population control in stressed environments but I doubt it cause it seems to be the exact opposite.

Quote
After that, every society and every individual will decide for itself whether it finds homosexuality abhorrent or not.  Once upon a time, people were burned at the stake for having red hair.  Oops

And we still put Innocent People to death, Oops   Only the method changed.  All societies will destroy what is perceived to be a threat to that society. Justified or Not. Even the most liberal, when the Mob Rule takes over.

To bring it back to Tax.  I don't care if people are gay, as long as you pay your taxes.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 07:13:26 PM
 #71

To bring it back to Tax.  I don't care if people are gay, as long as you pay your taxes.

I don't get why people insist on claiming it... It's not "your" mugging, is it? or "your" robbery? Taxes are theft, plain and simple.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 07:17:48 PM
 #72

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 07:19:46 PM
 #73

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.
>implying roads could not be possible without taxes.
>implying the internet would not be here without taxes.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 07:22:38 PM
 #74

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

If they didn't take in the first place, they wouldn't NEED to give back. That they sometimes use taxes for things which benefit the people they stole the money from, IMO, only highlights the fact that usually, they don't.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 07:53:38 PM
 #75

Do you use anything that Taxes generate.  Do you drive "On" the road?  The internet is due to ARPA, funded by Taxes, and now has been handed over to commercial interests.

Taxes are not quite theft, they give back, it is the amount they give back that everyone complains about.

That's like saying it's OK if your robber steals your wallet and your car and gives you bus fare so you can get home.

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 07:59:43 PM
 #76

They are not stealing the "wallet or Car",  to properly continue your scenerio, "the robber", just isn't giving you enough of the money that you put into your wallet.  The Robber, would be "stealing' the money before you even received it.  That would be a good robber.  And then he decides to give some of it back, to make you feel better.  If you do indeed feel better, then great.  If you don't then well too bad. But the robber says; "hey, this person didn't make enough money so I will give it all back and let them use the services anyway"  Now, who is the thief.


Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:02:26 PM
 #77

They are not stealing the "wallet or Car",  to properly continue your scenerio, "the robber", just isn't giving you enough of the money that you put into your wallet.  The Robber, would be "stealing' the money before you even received it.  That would be a good robber.  And then he decides to give some of it back, to make you feel better.  If you do indeed feel better, then great.  If you don't then well too bad. But the robber says; "hey, this person didn't make enough money so I will give it all back and let them use the services anyway"  Now, who is the thief.


I don't even know how this could be remotely considered as a reasonable retort.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 08:06:47 PM
 #78

Dude, when you get your paycheck, the money is already gone.  And if you are running the business, and don't take the money out ahead of time, and if you don't, your business will not remain in good standing under your states AG. They are not taking the money, they never gave it to you.

Now, if your W2 is wrong you might owe some more or less. 

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:09:25 PM
 #79

Dude, when you get your paycheck, the money is already gone.  And if you are running the business, and don't take the money out ahead of time, and if you don't, your business will not remain in good standing under your states AG. They are not taking the money, they never gave it to you.

Now, if your W2 is wrong you might owe some more or less. 
So, you believe it was the state's to begin with?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:11:58 PM
 #80

OK: Let's say I kick down your door, go into the kitchen, and make you a sandwich.

I then give you the sandwich, and present you with a bill for my "services", which I expect you to pay under threat of murder.

How have I helped you, exactly?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 08:13:28 PM
 #81

Yea, in the U.S. anyways. It started with the States then filtered up to the FED.  States would probably hold the big piece if it wasn't for the Commerce Clause. The FEDs have abused the Commerce Clause to a point of rebellion of the states and the Public.

Curiously, Do you know the Amish don't pay Social Security, Don't have to have House Insurance on their loans, and are not subject to the new Health Care Laws.   If they had Internet access, I'd convert.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:15:31 PM
 #82

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost.  

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

Yes.

Private jails leading to kickbacks for extra convictions suicide involved:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/115477/20110223/kids-for-cash-judge-ciavarella-called-scumbag-by-grieving-mom.htm

'pay to spray' firefighters watch as fire burns multiple pets burned alive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html



wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 08:18:54 PM
 #83

OK: Let's say I kick down your door, go into the kitchen, and make you a sandwich.

I then give you the sandwich, and present you with a bill for my "services", which I expect you to pay under threat of murder.

How have I helped you, exactly?


With the exception of Murder, that is a pretty good analogy. But if I don't pay, you will get it from my neighbor when you do the same to him.  

We don't have debtors prisons or crimes. It is not illegal to owe money even to the government. Not the IRS has some more powers than any commercial institution, they can take your house, car, and assets, etc....  But they don't put you in jail or beat it out of you, unless you had tried to hide your assets. (Tax Evasion) That is why Switzerland is nice, its just a misdemeanor.


Oh, Thanx for the sandwich, next time put it on Rye or I will vote for another robber.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:19:39 PM
 #84

That's not a truly private fire department.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:23:28 PM
 #85

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost.  

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

Yes.

Neither of those cases are talking about private, for-profit companies.

One is gov't corruption, the other is the CITY fire dept refusing service to someone who is outside city limits.

so... fail all around.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:25:35 PM
 #86

Oh, Thanx for the sandwich, next time put it on Rye or I will vote for another robber.

Seriously?

Better idea: stay the hell out of my kitchen and let me make my own damn sandwich.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:26:22 PM
 #87

I don't understand wb3's apathy towards tyranny whatsoever.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 08:31:57 PM
 #88

Not tyranny, a form of order.  Your perception (Point of View) will depend on weather it is tyranny.

It is really Chaos.  The universe is Chaotic, but yet there is order within that Chaos.

Take for Example: Anonymous,  if anarchists, there is an order to the behavior.  Any true, anarchist would never agree with anyone else. But the small points of connections in believes will start to form an ordered Behavior.

Just like the Wild, Wild, West....    Out of chaos, comes order. 

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:33:09 PM
 #89

I don't see order. I don't see chaos. I see individuals.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:39:09 PM
 #90

You do know you can have Order without orders, Rules without rulers?

Anarchists are fully capable of agreeing not to mess with each others' business.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 08:54:21 PM
 #91

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost.  

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

Yes.

Neither of those cases are talking about private, for-profit companies.

One is gov't corruption, the other is the CITY fire dept refusing service to someone who is outside city limits.

so... fail all around.

Yes, the jail was indeed a private for profit facility.  50% fail for each of us

Anonymous
Guest

March 04, 2011, 08:57:04 PM
 #92

One private and for-profit business =/= fair, conscious and free economic environment.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 09:03:41 PM
 #93

The jail was run by a state-granted monopoly. Doesn't sound too "private" to me.

When I can start up my own jail to compete with the one in that story, then you'll have a point. Until then, Fail.


BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 09:46:33 PM
 #94

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

Yes.

Private jails leading to kickbacks for extra convictions suicide involved:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/115477/20110223/kids-for-cash-judge-ciavarella-called-scumbag-by-grieving-mom.htm

'pay to spray' firefighters watch as fire burns multiple pets burned alive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html

Neither of these provide evidence for your extraordinary claims.

First, someone buying a group of corrupt judges (which is what happened here) hardly indicates a problem with the market, but rather, with the government.

Second, the fire department here was a fully government service; this has nothing to do with privately-owned municipal services.

Try again.

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 10:09:12 PM
 #95

Try your luck with a privatized fire company then instead of a socialist one (like the USA and most of the world uses).  It has been done and lives and buildings we lost. 

Already private jails in the USA have led to the innocent being jailed for money.  Want to try your luck with private police?

Extraordinary claims. Can you provide sources for either of them?

Yes.

Private jails leading to kickbacks for extra convictions suicide involved:

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/115477/20110223/kids-for-cash-judge-ciavarella-called-scumbag-by-grieving-mom.htm

'pay to spray' firefighters watch as fire burns multiple pets burned alive:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/04/firefighters-watch-as-hom_n_750272.html

Neither of these provide evidence for your extraordinary claims.

First, someone buying a group of corrupt judges (which is what happened here) hardly indicates a problem with the market, but rather, with the government.

Second, the fire department here was a fully government service; this has nothing to do with privately-owned municipal services.

Try again.

No point in trying again.  If a privately run jail is considered government because the government sanctioned it, then in effect all things like this are government problems using this view.  And if a buying a judge (which we both agree is what happened here) is still government problem ONLY and has no fault with the private jail that did the buying there is no point in arguing. 




Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 10:11:45 PM
 #96

The jail was run by a state-granted monopoly. Doesn't sound too "private" to me.

When I can start up my own jail to compete with the one in that story, then you'll have a point. Until then, Fail.



Then we have very different ideas of what private is.  Using that argument my power company is a government entity too and so is Comcast.  I agree that they are MONOPOLIES but I do not think they are non-private.


Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 10:12:32 PM
 #97

The jail was run by a state-granted monopoly. Doesn't sound too "private" to me.

When I can start up my own jail to compete with the one in that story, then you'll have a point. Until then, Fail.


And I do welcome the day that I could string up my own wires and compete with Comcast and the power company. 

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 10:18:38 PM
 #98

You do know you can have Order without orders, Rules without rulers?

Anarchists are fully capable of agreeing not to mess with each others' business.

So the first rule: Is to agree to not mess with other's business.   That can be a little confusing. Sounds a little like; To each his own.

When one's business messes with another's business, the rule will be broken.

Order without orders, is a natural event. Like water seeking level ground at the lowest possible point.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 10:21:28 PM
 #99

Then we have very different ideas of what private is.  Using that argument my power company is a government entity too and so is Comcast.  I agree that they are MONOPOLIES but I do not think they are non-private.

You are arguing that the flaws of a mixed economy directly result in a free market being non-viable. In a free market, with arbitration instead of a court system, there would a) be nobody to buy, and b) be multiple, competing prisons for the defendants to choose from, should it be decided that incarceration would be the best way to ensure nobody ditches on their reparations.

Here, check out this comic: http://www.bigheadpress.com/eft?page=546

(linked page goes directly to the start of a very relevant story, but you're encouraged to read the whole thing. very worthwhile)

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 10:26:39 PM
 #100

Order without orders, is a natural event. Like water seeking level ground at the lowest possible point.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. If every member of a society follows this one rule:

Quote
You are not allowed to initiate the use of force, threats of force, or fraud against another person, nor is anyone you delegate.

Then an ordered society naturally flows from that.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 10:47:31 PM
 #101

Order without orders, is a natural event. Like water seeking level ground at the lowest possible point.

Exactly. I think you're beginning to get it. If every member of a society follows this one rule:

Quote
You are not allowed to initiate the use of force, threats of force, or fraud against another person, nor is anyone you delegate.

Then an ordered society naturally flows from that.

I get the Idealism, I don't get the Realism.

If everyone ?   If everyone lost all greed it would be better too. But if 1 person doesn't follow those rules, the whole thing fails.

And applying this to Humans, is contradictory in our nature. You know we are from a predatory branch. When we need to eat and we see some easy to get things, we go get them. Threats of force and/or fear of force being applied is why there is peace within our predatory system. Communes didn't work out so well, because resources are not abundant and/or free.

However, if everyone had but to ask for or just wish for food and water to receive it at no cost, we could build the society that so many want. It will have to start with the Food and Water.

Because when all is striped away, there are 3 things we must do in order to continue: Eat, Sleep, Propagate. 

The Sleeping is Free. Eating is not, Sex (well that depends on your point of view).

So in order to build the Peaceful No Force Society, we need Free Sleep (check), Free Food (nope), Free Sex (sometimes).

Just easy to acquire food would be a start. But with 5 billion people in the world, decreasing Oil supplies, rising costs, Nah, I hear the Drum Beats in the Distance.  Sorry,  anything but peace is coming.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:07:10 PM
 #102

Nobody said "no force". So I'm not quoting your wall because it's irrelevant.

3KzNGwzRZ6SimWuFAgh4TnXzHpruHMZmV8
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 11:07:52 PM
 #103

I get the Idealism, I don't get the Realism.

On the contrary, when someone breaks that rule, there are other means available to fix it... Check out the comic I linked on the last page. The "bad guys" in there tried to strand two asteroid miners out in the belt. That's decidedly not nice. The miners would have been perfectly within their rights to space the bastards and let THEM drift. They didn't, so we get to see what a criminal proceeding looks like in a free society.

I think everyone would agree that it's better if we work together, right? Hell, even game theory backs me up: Even if only one person can win, it's in your best interest to help the other contestants, because if you do, they'll help you.

You'll note also that the "rule" I quoted uses the word "initiate". That means it's not OK to start a fight, but it's plenty fine to finish one. So it's not like I'm advocating pacifism here. Frankly, for the system to work, and for Order to flow naturally from that one rule, only most people need to follow it. As long as the peaceful people outnumber the bullies, all is well.

You don't need free food, or free sex, even for that matter, to have peace. You simply have to have people willing to agree to trade something of value (Say, a bitcoin) for something of lesser value (to them, anyway), like an apple (or an hour in bed, as the case may be).

However, I do agree that without drastic change, by which I mean the discarding of old, worn, and harmful traditions, we may yet spiral back down to a new dark ages. But there are those, and I count myself among them, who bear the torch of Liberty still, and so I still hope for a better future.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:14:44 PM
 #104

Frankly, for the system to work, and for Order to flow naturally from that one rule, only most people need to follow it. As long as the peaceful people outnumber the bullies, all is well.

I think the really interesting thing about this statement is that it is exactly the same for statism. If, in a statist society, the bullies outnumber the peaceful, then we will almost definitely get bullies running things.

As it is, my opinion is that the peaceful outnumber the bullies, but they are convinced that they must put bullies in charge, or else all of those other peaceful people will turn against them.
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:26:00 PM
 #105

Beg your pardon you did say "initiate".

So be prepared, because others "might" use force. Then I guess it comes down to who practices the most and who is better.

Agreed on the part when we help each other.

Food is our prime motivator. When it is plentiful, we come up with grandiose plans. When it is scarce, all bets off.

Take the most peaceful group you can think of, even the ones helping each other. At first the larger group would break down into smaller groups of people helping each other for food. And again, and again, until there is only enough food for One. Then it is Survival of the Fittest.

Abstract Thought is just a one tool in survival of the fittest. It sometimes leads people to dream. Nature cares not of our dreams, it will go on its course with or without us.

This can be tested very easily.

Hate to say, there should never have been 5 Billion Humans on the planet. The Balance is out, it will be corrected, weather we like it or not. The Groups and Sub-Groups are already forming. Rates of individual food growth is going up. Sadly, many have forgot or looked down on those skills. Farming was never a profession, it was the basis for all life on the planet.

gtg

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 04, 2011, 11:33:36 PM
 #106

What if central planning is inefficient?

What if a free society could produce more food at less cost (of time and resources)?

What if a free society could also produce the food that people want to eat, as opposed to that which is subsidized by the government?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 04, 2011, 11:51:00 PM
 #107

As it is, my opinion is that the peaceful outnumber the bullies, but they are convinced that they must put bullies in charge, or else all of those other peaceful people will turn against them.

My view of the matter is that a statist society offers a position of power for the bullies to seek, and the hierarchy that will support him when he usurps that position of power. The clearest example of this is a Kingdom: Should someone topple the king and take his place, especially if he can do it through subterfuge, but conquering by the sword was not uncommon, he has, already in place, everything he needs to subjugate the populace. A democracy is not much better... It just switches birth or sword ability for who can lie the best.

The problem is the power structure itself. Take that down, there's nothing to take over. Combined with a population not conditioned to accept whoever happens to be in a position of power as a rightful authority, and you get the political equivalent of the Bitcoin network: It's easier and more profitable to play nice than it is to try and take over the system.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 05, 2011, 12:49:15 AM
 #108

What if central planning is inefficient?

What if a free society could produce more food at less cost (of time and resources)?

What if a free society could also produce the food that people want to eat, as opposed to that which is subsidized by the government?

The problem is central planning became to good, and replaced a loose networked system of producers. The network of small systems inter-related provided a stable system that was not easily broken. A section could be hurt, but the others could just re-route around the problem.  Centralization, was a mistake, even though it was more efficient. We needed to balance efficiency with stability.

Producing more food is 1 part, delivering it is the other. This is why geography matters. We have passed Hubbert's Peak Oil, the cost of goods being delivered will only go up. To a point to no deliveries. Prior to Oil, most people lived within 50 miles of vital resources. Las Vegas is done, as many others places. Then it comes down to "adaptive space", it will shrink an put pressures on the others.

The government subsidizing food is a moot point, it in effect is others giving and sharing. It a collapsed society or one in distress those who rely on the government will starve. (i.e. Katrina and New Orleans, many other examples exist) So it is not what the government can do, but what the individual can do. Can you produce what it take to live? The answer to that for most Americans is: No   If however you can, you are positioned well in the order. For others will do for you, for what you can do for them.  They need your food and clothing, you don't need their Xbox.

Problem is, that most people know farming is hard work and don't want to do it.  Even less people will want to do it, with out Oil.

Do I believe it is possible to achieve the "perfect" society?  Yea, I don't think others will think it is so perfect because of all the hard work. People won't have Wars, commit serious crimes, etc... because they won't have time to and be to tired at the end of the day.

But the Star Trek, perfect reality, not until we get one of those Food Materializers that rearranges molecules. Guess what would be the most important job then. The Farmer would become the Food Materializer Repair Man.  Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
March 05, 2011, 01:25:16 AM
 #109

The government subsidizing food is a moot point, it in effect is others giving and sharing.

More like people getting mugged for their sandwich, after which a bite (or 12) is taken out, and what's left is passed on to whoever needs it.

Central planning has never been good. Ever.

What happened is, a free market allowed the more efficient companies to grow to their optimal size, at which point they bought I'm sorry, supported, enough politicians to ensure that they could grow beyond optimal size, without worrying about competitors.

God, I'm starting to sound like a broken record.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 05, 2011, 01:41:26 AM
 #110

Quote
What happened is, a free market allowed the more efficient companies to grow to their optimal size, at which point they bought I'm sorry, supported, enough politicians to ensure that they could grow beyond optimal size, without worrying about competitors.


Agreed.  Grin

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
river
Guest

March 18, 2011, 03:10:00 AM
 #111

Taxes are only CONTRACT LAW.

DO NOT SIGN a contract ... then you do not have to pay taxes.   Since Taxes are an ACT .. NOT A LAW ...
ACTS only have to power of law upon CONSENT of the citizen ... so ...

unless you create(d) a "LEGAL" business by signing a GOVERNMENT CONTRACT to apply for a business license
OR
you get a "job" and sign the employment CONTRACT for that job .. you are NOT required to pay tax.

It's all a lie.

They can't even arrest you for tax evasion because they themselves illegally signed all these corrupt laws ..

(did you know that makes ALL OF THEM national criminal traitors) .. and by any "common law rule" nation on earth (Canada, U.S. ... LOTS OF others) .. there is only ONE Lawfully permitted "sentence" for said crimes .... guess what that is!

But .. they do have guns .. and brutal, pain thirsty, threatening, tazing, murdering, Nazis forces (you call them cops and military) ... so hide what you have .. just in case.
TheKoziTwo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1536
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 18, 2011, 06:55:26 PM
 #112

Quote
They can't even arrest you for tax evasion because they themselves illegally signed all these corrupt laws ..
Ed Brown refused to pay his taxes using a similar argument. 37 years prison:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dITKfUJKkl8

Anonymous
Guest

March 19, 2011, 02:21:43 AM
 #113

I find it hilarious that the same people advocating peak oil are the same ones saying there will be global warming. If theres no oil there will be no global warming . Shouldnt we use all the oil to save humanity from global warming then  Huh


Oh I forgot the science is in.....
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 19, 2011, 03:52:00 AM
 #114

I find it hilarious that the same people advocating peak oil are the same ones saying there will be global warming. If theres no oil there will be no global warming . Shouldnt we use all the oil to save humanity from global warming then  Huh


Oh I forgot the science is in.....

Either I'm not understanding what you're saying, or you don't understand peak oil or global warming.

We humans have been discovering new oil and consuming it at an increasing rate. There is a finite amount of oil to discover and consume. At some point, our increasing rate of consumption will have to stop. That point is peak oil, and there is a possibility that it has already past. Which means it's only a matter of time before the oil economy comes crashing down around us. Should we prepare for it, or just ignore the possibility?

If the theory of anthropogenic global warming is correct, then our increasing industrialization, particularly the burning of fossil fuels, is having an impact on the planet's climate. Fossil fuels are not a problem when in their original form, as they are effectively huge sinks of sequestered carbon. When these fuels are burnt, that stored carbon is released into the atmosphere and, according to AGW, alters the climate.

Keep in mind, according to the theory of AGW, we don't have to solve the problem to "save the planet", we have to solve the problem to save humanity. Even if we cause 99% of all life to become extinct, within a couple of million years nobody would ever notice we had ever been here.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 3199


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 04:57:03 AM
 #115

At some point, our increasing rate of consumption will have to stop.

[...]

When these fuels are burnt, that stored carbon is released into the atmosphere and, according to AGW, alters the climate.

These two problems will solve themselves. As oil prices rise, the incentive to use alternative methods will increase. Less oil will be burned due to higher prices, and the impact that oil has on global warming will be greatly reduced.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
March 19, 2011, 05:03:19 AM
 #116

These two problems will solve themselves. As oil prices rise, the incentive to use alternative methods will increase. Less oil will be burned due to higher prices, and the impact that oil has on global warming will be greatly reduced.

I think part of the worry is that too much damage has been done, and the other (of mine, anyway) is that states will fight to keep energy prices cheap until the day they die, causing a prolonging of the damage.

By no means do I support anything other than market solutions to the potential problem of AGW. However, states have a perverse incentive to keep their citizens fat and happy, even if that means an even harder crash down the line.
theymos
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3066
Merit: 3199


View Profile
March 19, 2011, 05:44:46 AM
 #117

State interference in the energy market will cause major problems, to be sure. It can't last forever, though. Eventually the market has to win. Maybe if the crash comes hard, people will wise up to the uselessness of governments (though I doubt it).

I haven't seen any data that causes me to be even remotely worried about "doomsday-class" climate change. From what I've seen, the worst-case scenario is a significant reduction in the amount of land suitable for farming. This will have a terrible effect on the economy, but we'll recover from it eventually.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 05:00:34 PM
 #118

I am glad to see people seeing the Hubbert's Peak Oil problem, finally. I have been trying to get people to see it since 2008.

We have reached Peak Oil, the key to the whole formula is Energy In : Energy Out ratio and not the increase/decrease in supply and demand.

Yea as oil goes up the demand goes down, and up and down, etc... This shows where you are: on the down slope of the graph which can go on for awhile with the poor countries initially getting hurt, then countries that rely on imports of Necessity Goods (Food, etc..), and then finally countries that rely on internal transportation (significant parts of the U.S.) Bye, Bye Las Vegas.

The reality is the earth will not run out of oil because we will stop drilling for it due to costs. Currently the 2/3rds of the Oil Recovered has an EI:EO ratio greater than 1. It costs more in energy to get than we get from it.

Think of it as AP:AR (accounts payable:accounts receivable) We (the world) are throwing money down a hole that we will never get back. But we have to because we didn't prepare for it. The nothing will prevent the change without a significant scientific find in energy that can be used to fuel vehicles. Hydrogen's ratio for generation is greater than 1, but if we could find a way of getting it below 1 it would solve the energy crisis.

Best thing to do is prepare, live within 50 miles of suppliers of necessity products (food, wood, water, etc ) The 50 miles was the average distance anyone would travel prior to Oil. Buy a horse and hay.

The old times will be new again.

BTW: Political unrest has a lot less to do with politics and more to do with food costs. Anyone want to guess where food costs have the most affect. Yep, it is the Middle East. When people can't afford to eat, they fight.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 22, 2011, 05:01:47 PM
 #119

Go nuclear.

fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 03:52:14 PM
 #120

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 03:56:11 PM
 #121

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.
If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
March 28, 2011, 03:59:15 PM
 #122

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

So going nuclear, with a startup time of at least 20 years, is not really an option.  Some newer technologies might come online though, e.g. fuel reprocessing etc.

Go nuclear.

Can you verify or link to anything that does.
It just doesn't seem right to me.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 04:01:55 PM
 #123

Especially since 1 properly fueled reactor can last 20 years on the medium scale. Oddly enough, a lot of the "waste" could support mini-reactors for small use.

But who wants a reactor in there back yard providing power to their home.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 28, 2011, 04:34:06 PM
 #124

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AcWkN4ngR2Y

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 28, 2011, 05:56:41 PM
 #125

Especially since 1 properly fueled reactor can last 20 years on the medium scale. Oddly enough, a lot of the "waste" could support mini-reactors for small use.

But who wants a reactor in there back yard providing power to their home.

I would, for no other reason than to limit the 'detrimental reliance' that I have upon the power company, but there are cheaper ways to accomplish this.  A reactor can be built as small as 5000 watts, and made to last for decades.  This is exactly how the continuous mission to Antartica heats and powers it's base camp buildings.  An entire city block can be powered from a reactor site the size of a quarter acre home lot.

I think that the 4S would be a huge boon, but I don't think it's going to happen before the thorium LFTR (Lifter) reactor is built, and during all of the recent news in Japan, the media completely overlooked the news that China has announced that they are going forward with a domestic thorium energy amp reactor design.

The US has fallen way behind, and will continue to do so as long as governments and NIMBY types continue to inhibit progress.

"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'
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 05:59:26 PM
 #126

The US has fallen way behind, and will continue to do so as long as governments and NIMBY types continue to inhibit progress.

Humans have irrational fear of risks that they can't control. They'll happily drive their cars even though it is more dangerous than having nuclear power plants in their backyard.

MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 28, 2011, 06:19:44 PM
 #127

I read once, or saw in a documentary (sorry, can't remember where), that there is presently about 60 years of nuclear fuel left in the world - for currently existing conventional nuclear power stations.  If all electricity generation were to be done by nuclear, then all that fuel would last only 3 years.

That data is wrong.  If all of the civil power plants in the world were replaced with PWR type uranimum reactors (i.e. everything that powers the grid, and excluding transport fuel) then the world would run out of the presently known reserves of economicly extractable uranium in about 70 years, at a continuous demand relative to current demands.  There are a lot of assumptions there, not the least of which is that we never increase in demand, nor ever find any more veins of extractable uranium.  Furthurmore, uranium isn't the only nuke fuel known, and isn't even the best one.  Thorium is a far better civic reactor fuel, but uranium reactors were demanded by governments in order to produce weapons grade plutonium.  We know now how well that all worked out.  Thorium is vastly more abundant, nearly all of it is burnable (as compared to uranium 235, which is only about 0.7% of the natural volume of uranium).  Thorium is not naturally fissionable, and must be 'transmuted' within a reactor core before fission; and transmution of thorium takes about 28 days from first nutron bombardment.  So a runaway (supercritical) reaction is, although not actually impossible, orders of magnitude slower in cascading.  (Uranium235 is naturally fissionable, and U238 is transmutable into plutonium in seconds)  So instead of a race against time to get the pumps back online like we saw in Japan, the same kind of system breakdown would have to have months of inaction before there was a threat to the containment.  And that is not even considering that reactors designed for thorium can take advantage of it's inherently safer characteristics, such as a pebble bed reactor or the LFTR (Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor) that intentionally uses a molten core.  If those kind of cores make it out of their containment, they seperate from the main mass core, loose critical mass (if they ever had it, an energy amp is a sub-critical reactor that uses a particle excellerator to maintain a critical reaction) and then cool off.  Which results in the liquid core cooling off and solidifing, never to move again in a thousand years.  (If a reactor has a catastrophic systems failure, like we saw in Japan, the most likely result is that the core cools off inside it's own containment by convection over a period of weeks.  If the systems cannot be brought back up in order to maintain enough of a reaction to keep the core liquid, that core is probably a loss, but it still wouldn't get out.)

"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'
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 28, 2011, 11:19:03 PM
 #128

If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 29, 2011, 05:44:28 PM
 #129

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

1. there is no presently available technology which can substitute fossil fuels.
2. fossil fuels are essential to our society and way of life.
3. cheap energy (ie. fossil fuels) and a stable society will be required to develop new energy technologies.
4. any new technology will require roughly 20 years to develop and implement on a wide enough scale to substitute fossil fuels (estimate).
5. there are, at the outside, 20 years (estimate) of easily recoverable fossil fuels left, after which there will be no more cheap energy and development of these substitutes will be impossible.

So, unless we start to develop NOW, society will crumble before we get there.   There are some developments in progress, but I keep hearing about how the oil companies are buying up any patents relating to alternative energies, eg. electric cars, high energy density batteries, etc. And government does not have a serious strategy to combat the problem.

If the Hirsch report is too long for you, read the abstract of this document:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf


If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2011, 05:54:47 PM
 #130

How does nuclear energy figure in to the Hirsch report?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

1. there is no presently available technology which can substitute fossil fuels.
2. fossil fuels are essential to our society and way of life.
3. cheap energy (ie. fossil fuels) and a stable society will be required to develop new energy technologies.
4. any new technology will require roughly 20 years to develop and implement on a wide enough scale to substitute fossil fuels (estimate).
5. there are, at the outside, 20 years (estimate) of easily recoverable fossil fuels left, after which there will be no more cheap energy and development of these substitutes will be impossible.

So, unless we start to develop NOW, society will crumble before we get there.   There are some developments in progress, but I keep hearing about how the oil companies are buying up any patents relating to alternative energies, eg. electric cars, high energy density batteries, etc. And government does not have a serious strategy to combat the problem.

If the Hirsch report is too long for you, read the abstract of this document:
http://www.peakoilassociates.com/PeakOilAnalysisOctober6-2007.pdf


If that's a problem, we can just goes wind energy or solar energy, or whatever alternative energy source.

Energy are not something that I worry too much about. The market will eventually force our movement to alternative energy source or force us to become more efficient at using energy.

This.

As long as the government allows the market to function, which it probably won't.

Future technology in energy is also a very significant, but rarely considered factor. The market will innovate where needed.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 29, 2011, 06:04:10 PM
 #131

Have you guys read the Hirsch report?  Read it first, before drawing conclusions.  In short:

There has always been some group making such warnings for as long as I've been alive.

"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'
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2011, 06:15:19 PM
 #132

Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
March 29, 2011, 06:30:35 PM
 #133

Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

Exactly, we had power before we had coal plants.
It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 29, 2011, 07:10:27 PM
 #134


"We aren't running out of resources we're just finding substitutes for the resources we're running out of."

"Now watch as I pretend that oil at $150/bbl is as economically beneficial as oil at $2/bbl."

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

*eat shit dude

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 29, 2011, 07:33:52 PM
 #135

Rats and cockroaches tend to be the wild game available in prison.

"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'
caveden
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106
Merit: 1000



View Profile
March 29, 2011, 08:30:36 PM
 #136

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

*eat shit dude

If this someone keeps suppressing his freedoms by keeping him in captivity he'll probably starve, of course. But if s/he stops being such an asshole criminal and let him interact with decent human beings and nature, he'll probably find a way to improve his life, you bet.

About the video, it proves the point that it's silly to panic about "we only have 60 years left of nuclear fuel! OMG! How will my grandchildren do?!".
Prices will push for better uses of scarce resources, if you just let people free.

18rZYyWcafwD86xvLrfuxWG5xEMMWUtVkL
asdf
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 527
Merit: 500


View Profile
April 02, 2011, 11:23:23 PM
 #137

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and lock him in a cell with nothing but 10 gallons of water and a party sub.  As his food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before he starves he'll discover new sources of nourishment* he didn't know existed before and he'll be better off than ever.

Someone should put this guy's theories to the test and isolate a bunch of people on a planet with nothing but the resources on it.  As their food sources are depleted, their value will rise and I'm sure that before they starve they'll discover new sources of nourishment they didn't know existed before and they'll be better off than ever.

A bucket of water and a sandwich are insufficient to sustain one human. you're argument does not follow. Give one man a plot of land and some seeds and we might have a valid analogy.
fergalish
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 440
Merit: 250


View Profile
April 03, 2011, 06:55:49 PM
 #138

How does nuclear energy figure in to the Hirsch report?
If we built more nuclear reactors could we extend that a few hundred years and get rid of the bulk of the fossil fuels?

Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

At about 2:25, the guy in the video seems to negate peak U.S. domestic oil production. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Oil_Production_and_Imports_1920_to_2005.png and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil:
Quote
M. King Hubbert created and first used the models behind peak oil in 1956 to accurately predict that United States oil production would peak between 1965 and 1970.[1] His log...
Also, as the price rises, yeah, hard-to-get oil becomes profitable.  But poor people will find it hard to deal with that - remember the riots in half the world in 2008 when food prices rose?  [Many causes, including high oil price]  I think many people don't realize that the green revolution was only possible thanks to fertilizers produced with fossil fuels, without which half the world's population is at risk:
Quote
Inorganic fertilizer use has also significantly supported global population growth — it has been estimated that almost half the people on the Earth are currently fed as a result of artificial nitrogen fertilizer use.[1]
(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer )
At some point, oil production *will* decline, the question is whether a viable alternative is developed and implemented long enough before that to mitigate the problems peak oil and unbounded price rises will cause.  The current political climate doesn't inspire me.



Expensive fossil fuel procures windmills and and solar panels and rations resources until energy become cheap. Fossil fuels technologies are not required for the existence of new energy sources. Rather cheap energy decrease pressure for development of new energy technologies.

The problem is that right now, 2011, NOTHING will substitute oil, not even all the alternatives put together.  So first some new technology needs to be invented.  Then it needs to be mass produced and distributed BEFORE the last easily obtainable fossil energy starts to be spent on wars defending the last easily obtainable fossil energy.

Exactly, we had power before we had coal plants.
It's just why bother if it's not worth it (economically) at this point.
I'm talking about the business point of view, not individuals that care.
Yeah, we had power before coal, alright, slavery. Wasn't that fun for all involved. [/sarcasm]
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 03, 2011, 07:09:14 PM
 #139

Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Littleshop
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1316
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
April 03, 2011, 10:18:35 PM
 #140

Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)

A from scratch nuclear hydrogen generator could make massive amounts of hydrogen because it could use heat from the nuclear reactor directly plus electricity generated and modern metallic catalysts.  While I think battery electric vehicles will advance enough to be usable in the next few years (mostly range issues currently), hydrogen fueled cars using internal combustion engines or fuel cells could replace gasoline in many applications. 

If we put the effort into it, nuclear could displace a substantial amount of fossil fuels.  That effort is not insurmountable, but would take five to ten years with a Manhattan Project level effort. 

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 04, 2011, 03:57:12 PM
 #141

Quote
Nuclear cannot substitute fossil fuels, because fossil fuels are easily transported, hence we use them to transport stuff.  Until someone developes a battery with the same energy density, ease of recharge, and low cost of a conventional fuel tank, no other energy source will substitute for oil, upon which all developed nations are critically dependent.

Nuclear could produce hydrogen which would allow all conventional means of transportation to still exist. Just stick two electrodes into water. If we would run out of nuclear fuel well before we run out of hydrogen from water.(preferably sea water, cause we need the fresh water)

A from scratch nuclear hydrogen generator could make massive amounts of hydrogen because it could use heat from the nuclear reactor directly plus electricity generated and modern metallic catalysts.  While I think battery electric vehicles will advance enough to be usable in the next few years (mostly range issues currently), hydrogen fueled cars using internal combustion engines or fuel cells could replace gasoline in many applications. 

If we put the effort into it, nuclear could displace a substantial amount of fossil fuels.  That effort is not insurmountable, but would take five to ten years with a Manhattan Project level effort. 

I'm with you, it's just too bad this Japan crisis has got everyone so scared about nuclear power. Don't get me wrong it's got the worst potential damage but things like the BP oil spill are way more common and horrible in a slightly less scary / no zombies type of way.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 08:25:36 AM
 #142

Quote
Governments will want their TAX Huh The solution is obvious but scary.

Oh Dear.  I hope the solution doesn't involve forking the bitcoin client into one that automatically sends a portion of every transaction to your friendly neighborhood gang, cause that's the only obvious solution I can think of.  Cheesy

"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."
dbitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 11:10:33 AM
 #143

Why all think only about oil?  Too much noise from media maybe?

There are large reserves of natural gas and coal.
Coal can be very effective and environmentally friendly to convert to natural gas, using new technology.
Coal even cheaper than oil (at current market price) and more environmentally friendly.
Of proven coal reserves at current consumption rate will be enough for at least 120 years.
There is only one problem for some western countries: the Middle East countries do not have coal, and there is not so much coal in Africa.

BTCDig - mining pool (Stratum, VarDiff, DGM, SSL, JSON API)
deadlizard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 06, 2011, 11:24:56 AM
 #144

current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.

it's 11:59 on plant earth Wink

btc address:1MEyKbVbmMVzVxLdLmt4Zf1SZHFgj56aqg
gpg fingerprint:DD1AB28F8043D0837C86A4CA7D6367953C6FE9DC

dbitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 01:07:45 PM
 #145

current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.

it's 11:59 on plant earth Wink

proven coal reserves

I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.

BTCDig - mining pool (Stratum, VarDiff, DGM, SSL, JSON API)
deadlizard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 06, 2011, 01:14:56 PM
 #146

current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.

it's 11:59 on plant earth Wink

proven coal reserves

I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
Thats what they said about oil in the early 20th century when they used the current consumption argument to claim we had thousands of years worth of it left

btc address:1MEyKbVbmMVzVxLdLmt4Zf1SZHFgj56aqg
gpg fingerprint:DD1AB28F8043D0837C86A4CA7D6367953C6FE9DC

wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 06, 2011, 01:58:00 PM
 #147

Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.

I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.

But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2011, 02:05:05 PM
 #148

Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.

I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.

But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.

We are not past the peak in copper.  The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry.  Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere.  The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.

"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'
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 06, 2011, 02:13:29 PM
 #149

Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.

I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.

But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.

We are not past the peak in copper.  The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry.  Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere.  The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.

Actually, we are, but unlike Oil, Copper is re-cycled and can sustain a market much longer. When it becomes a little bit more expensive, it will be like gold and be 80% recycled.

If the price keeps going the way it does, all people with forclosure proceedings could just strip the Electrical Wire out of their house, sell it and pay off the Bank.  Grin

Here is some interesting reading: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

It covers peaks on many materials.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
dbitcoin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 500

BTCDig - mining pool


View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 08:10:40 PM
 #150

current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.

it's 11:59 on plant earth Wink

proven coal reserves

I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
Thats what they said about oil in the early 20th century when they used the current consumption argument to claim we had thousands of years worth of it left

Actually we do not have thousands of years.
50-70 years probably enough for completely switch to electric power in most areas.
So we a see more nuclear/gas/coal plants in the near 20 years (this already planed in most countries, no mater what 'greens' think and want).
But I hope ITER project will be successful in the same 20 years period.

BTCDig - mining pool (Stratum, VarDiff, DGM, SSL, JSON API)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 06, 2011, 08:31:24 PM
 #151

Consumption Rate is part of the equation but once on the downside, you can never reach the peak again.

I don't know much about Coal Reserves, but I do know we don't drive our cars and airplanes on it. It might be able to supply electric plants for a while for electricity. But I must assume, that since basic metals such as copper have passed its peak, coal must be close or has already passed it.

But Coal didn't get us here, Oil did, so once Oil goes so does society as we know it.

We are not past the peak in copper.  The prices for copper are more volatile than simply the cost of production, and very little of it is consumed in industry.  Most of it still exists in a refined form within electrical conduits everywhere.  The big cost driver for copper over the last decade is the increases in the construction demands of China and India.

Actually, we are, but unlike Oil, Copper is re-cycled and can sustain a market much longer. When it becomes a little bit more expensive, it will be like gold and be 80% recycled.

If the price keeps going the way it does, all people with forclosure proceedings could just strip the Electrical Wire out of their house, sell it and pay off the Bank.  Grin

Here is some interesting reading: Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubbert_peak_theory

It covers peaks on many materials.

I'm aware of the science, and I'm telling you that we have not hit that peak.  Hubbert's Peak has limited applications to resources that have a significant recycle use anyway, because it relates only to the economics of resource extraction.

And if it even apraaches the spot price in silver many of the major uses of copper (electrically related mostly) can be easily repalced by other materials.

"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'
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 06, 2011, 10:08:57 PM
 #152

Oil is renewable you're just not patient enough.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
steelhouse
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 717
Merit: 501


View Profile
April 08, 2011, 03:14:20 AM
 #153

http://www.freetochoose.tv/
deadlizard
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10



View Profile
April 08, 2011, 04:02:16 AM
 #154

current consumption rate
The human obsession with growth renders any argument taking into account current consumption rates invalid.

it's 11:59 on plant earth Wink

proven coal reserves

I am sure that the real reserves are much larger.
Thats what they said about oil in the early 20th century when they used the current consumption argument to claim we had thousands of years worth of it left

Actually we do not have thousands of years.
My point exactly. current consumption is highly variable and we can't count on unknown reserves.
Imagine everyone decides coal is the answer. The extraction and consumption of it will rise and bring your estimate down to within our lifetimes.

btc address:1MEyKbVbmMVzVxLdLmt4Zf1SZHFgj56aqg
gpg fingerprint:DD1AB28F8043D0837C86A4CA7D6367953C6FE9DC

Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 08, 2011, 12:34:09 PM
 #155

I think it will somewhat take care of it's self.
At the point that conventional fuels are so expensive there is a huge profit in alternatives private businesses will focus on them.
Of course they're going to see it coming and head in that direction first.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 08, 2011, 02:21:21 PM
 #156

Hate to bring this up, because it will change the price.

A gallon of vegetable oil is now cheaper in some parts of the country than gas. Why the big deal?

Because now people with Diesel Engines can buy new vegetable oil and use it for gas cheaper than diesel.

Myth-busters already did the experiment. They took a un-modified diesel car and poured used vegetable oil (that they got for free from a restaurant). The car ran great but they said it smelled like french fries.

Point being, it won't be long before others catch on, and havoc will ensue.

Was Rudolf Diesel ahead of his time or what?  Finally going to run the engine with what it was designed to use. Oil companies did a good job hiding it for awhile but it is out now.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 08, 2011, 03:12:31 PM
 #157

Does the oil come from vegetables subsidized by the U.S. government, e.g. corn?
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 08, 2011, 03:55:16 PM
 #158

Does the oil come from vegetables subsidized by the U.S. government, e.g. corn?

I guess in a small part yes, but not a large part. Most corn subsides are not to grow corn, but to "not" grow corn. Commodities are a complicated business if you want corn to get around the world. If it was just a local business, you wouldn't need a commodities market.

Funny, Restaurants and Chains used to pay for people to dispose of their used oil, now people will be picking it up for free, until the Chains realize they can sell it.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 08, 2011, 06:32:11 PM
 #159

Does the oil come from vegetables subsidized by the U.S. government, e.g. corn?

I guess in a small part yes, but not a large part. Most corn subsides are not to grow corn, but to "not" grow corn. Commodities are a complicated business if you want corn to get around the world. If it was just a local business, you wouldn't need a commodities market.

Funny, Restaurants and Chains used to pay for people to dispose of their used oil, now people will be picking it up for free, until the Chains realize they can sell it.

Too late.  I had a sidejob of collecting WVO from a local bar for over a year, but that ended about three years ago.  Now you can't even buy their WVO, because most of them have exclusive collection contracts.  Maybe that is just around here, though.  I live in Kentucky, where half of the vehicles on the road are some variation of a truck, and half of those are diesel.  Almost no one uses heat oil to heat their homes, but a crapload of the stuff is still sold around here.

Did you know that the red dye the feds put into heat oil (untaxed #2 diesel) can be filtered out pretty effectively with a filter that uses a roll of toilet paper as the element?

"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'
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 08, 2011, 06:34:11 PM
 #160

Hate to bring this up, because it will change the price.

A gallon of vegetable oil is now cheaper in some parts of the country than gas. Why the big deal?

Because now people with Diesel Engines can buy new vegetable oil and use it for gas cheaper than diesel.

Myth-busters already did the experiment. They took a un-modified diesel car and poured used vegetable oil (that they got for free from a restaurant). The car ran great but they said it smelled like french fries.

Point being, it won't be long before others catch on, and havoc will ensue.

Was Rudolf Diesel ahead of his time or what?  Finally going to run the engine with what it was designed to use. Oil companies did a good job hiding it for awhile but it is out now.

With virgin oil, the buyer has to choose between using the oil as fuel for a diesel truck or as fuel for his body.

"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'
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 08, 2011, 07:20:16 PM
 #161

Hate to bring this up, because it will change the price.

A gallon of vegetable oil is now cheaper in some parts of the country than gas. Why the big deal?

Because now people with Diesel Engines can buy new vegetable oil and use it for gas cheaper than diesel.

Myth-busters already did the experiment. They took a un-modified diesel car and poured used vegetable oil (that they got for free from a restaurant). The car ran great but they said it smelled like french fries.

Point being, it won't be long before others catch on, and havoc will ensue.

Was Rudolf Diesel ahead of his time or what?  Finally going to run the engine with what it was designed to use. Oil companies did a good job hiding it for awhile but it is out now.

With virgin oil, the buyer has to choose between using the oil as fuel for a diesel truck or as fuel for his body.

No, that is what is great. Cook with it, then run it through some cheese cloth and then drive with it.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 08, 2011, 07:34:33 PM
 #162

Hate to bring this up, because it will change the price.

A gallon of vegetable oil is now cheaper in some parts of the country than gas. Why the big deal?

Because now people with Diesel Engines can buy new vegetable oil and use it for gas cheaper than diesel.

Myth-busters already did the experiment. They took a un-modified diesel car and poured used vegetable oil (that they got for free from a restaurant). The car ran great but they said it smelled like french fries.

Point being, it won't be long before others catch on, and havoc will ensue.

Was Rudolf Diesel ahead of his time or what?  Finally going to run the engine with what it was designed to use. Oil companies did a good job hiding it for awhile but it is out now.

With virgin oil, the buyer has to choose between using the oil as fuel for a diesel truck or as fuel for his body.

No, that is what is great. Cook with it, then run it through some cheese cloth and then drive with it.

You can drive with the leftovers, true.  But you literally cannot eat it and drive on it.  There are people in this world that literally depend upon cookies made with vegetable oil and dirt.  Ultimately, biofuels still compete with human fuels, no matter their nature.

"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'
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 08, 2011, 07:37:28 PM
 #163

That is true, but I think moot.

People now have a choice, eat the vegetable oil, or drive on it.  I tend to think the individuals taking advantage of the price difference now, will make the most economical use of the vegetable oil.

Personally, I think there will be a lot of people asking for all that oil when McDonald's changes the french fry oil.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 09, 2011, 02:47:54 PM
 #164

You have to decide "eat or burn" the oil that you would normally consume but some is always thrown away and that's basically free fuel at that point outside the effort to strain it etc.
Personally I don't think it's that great once you go beyond burning waste oil. When you start farming it as a fuel it loses it's benefit.
Maybe we should just fry more  Grin

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 17, 2011, 12:31:28 PM
 #165

Minor thread necromancy, but you guys are ignoring a HUGE 500lb gorilla in the room:

Hemp.

The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on hempseed oil.

It also solves the eat-or-drive conundrum, because the press-cakes from the seed make amazing flour.

The stems/stalks can be made into fiber for paper, rope, clothing, etc.

We all know what the flowers are good for.

And, the starches in the rest of the plant can be made into bio-degradable plastics.

If I could only grow one plant, It would be the Hemp plant.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
tomcollins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
April 17, 2011, 01:01:31 PM
 #166

Does the oil come from vegetables subsidized by the U.S. government, e.g. corn?

I guess in a small part yes, but not a large part. Most corn subsides are not to grow corn, but to "not" grow corn. Commodities are a complicated business if you want corn to get around the world. If it was just a local business, you wouldn't need a commodities market.

Funny, Restaurants and Chains used to pay for people to dispose of their used oil, now people will be picking it up for free, until the Chains realize they can sell it.

This is wrong.  There are huuuuge subsidies to corn farmers.  In fact, almost all would not be profitable at current prices until the subsidies come in.

If you have Netflix, there was a great documentary I believe called King Corn where some guys took an acre of corn and showed what happened to the corn, how a farmer would make his money, etc...
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 18, 2011, 02:49:10 PM
 #167

Minor thread necromancy, but you guys are ignoring a HUGE 500lb gorilla in the room:

Hemp.

The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on hempseed oil.

It also solves the eat-or-drive conundrum, because the press-cakes from the seed make amazing flour.

The stems/stalks can be made into fiber for paper, rope, clothing, etc.

We all know what the flowers are good for.

And, the starches in the rest of the plant can be made into bio-degradable plastics.

If I could only grow one plant, It would be the Hemp plant.

Hemp oil tastes really good too.
Honestly I think this would fix a lot of problems, people are just too closed minded though.
I'm not even talking about the getting high part, I don't care about it. Just the rest of the plant.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 18, 2011, 04:19:58 PM
 #168

Minor thread necromancy, but you guys are ignoring a HUGE 500lb gorilla in the room:

Hemp.

The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on hempseed oil.

It also solves the eat-or-drive conundrum, because the press-cakes from the seed make amazing flour.

The stems/stalks can be made into fiber for paper, rope, clothing, etc.

We all know what the flowers are good for.

And, the starches in the rest of the plant can be made into bio-degradable plastics.

If I could only grow one plant, It would be the Hemp plant.

Can you "source" that statement?  I believe he was less interested in the fuel which most credit to ( coal dust, peanut oil, etc) than the Air. He was fascinated by compressing "Air" to heat it and then inject "fuels" into the engine.

Do you know there was a rumor that he was killed by Coal Industrialist as a threat to their empire?  Back then, that was like the Oil Companies killing people over the 200 m/gal. carburetor.  Funny how that happens.
 

I do agree with you and all the benefits of Hemp, but politics.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1000



View Profile
April 18, 2011, 06:36:12 PM
 #169

Minor thread necromancy, but you guys are ignoring a HUGE 500lb gorilla in the room:

Hemp.

The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on hempseed oil.

It also solves the eat-or-drive conundrum, because the press-cakes from the seed make amazing flour.

The stems/stalks can be made into fiber for paper, rope, clothing, etc.

We all know what the flowers are good for.

And, the starches in the rest of the plant can be made into bio-degradable plastics.

If I could only grow one plant, It would be the Hemp plant.

Can you "source" that statement?  I believe he was less interested in the fuel which most credit to ( coal dust, peanut oil, etc) than the Air. He was fascinated by compressing "Air" to heat it and then inject "fuels" into the engine.
I'm not going to research it for you, but he ran the first demostration model on hemp oil, and marketed the engine as a means for third world nations to become less dependent upon foreign energy companies.  Try Google, I hear it's pretty good at this kind of thing.
Quote
Do you know there was a rumor that he was killed by Coal Industrialist as a threat to their empire?  Back then, that was like the Oil Companies killing people over the 200 m/gal. carburetor.  Funny how that happens.


I think that you are getting slim data out of your rumors.  The mostly likely cause of his disappearance was the German government (his own) as it was apparent that he was marketing his engine to the British navy in the leadup to the first world war.  The German navy already had the tech, and likely desired to keep the advantage.  He boarded a ferry to cross the English channel, and never disembarked, and his body was never found.

"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'
Jered Kenna (TradeHill)
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 250



View Profile WWW
April 18, 2011, 08:29:08 PM
 #170

Minor thread necromancy, but you guys are ignoring a HUGE 500lb gorilla in the room:

Hemp.

The Diesel engine was originally designed to run on hempseed oil.

It also solves the eat-or-drive conundrum, because the press-cakes from the seed make amazing flour.

The stems/stalks can be made into fiber for paper, rope, clothing, etc.

We all know what the flowers are good for.

And, the starches in the rest of the plant can be made into bio-degradable plastics.

If I could only grow one plant, It would be the Hemp plant.

Can you "source" that statement?  I believe he was less interested in the fuel which most credit to ( coal dust, peanut oil, etc) than the Air. He was fascinated by compressing "Air" to heat it and then inject "fuels" into the engine.
I'm not going to research it for you, but he ran the first demostration model on hemp oil, and marketed the engine as a means for third world nations to become less dependent upon foreign energy companies.  Try Google, I hear it's pretty good at this kind of thing.
Quote
Do you know there was a rumor that he was killed by Coal Industrialist as a threat to their empire?  Back then, that was like the Oil Companies killing people over the 200 m/gal. carburetor.  Funny how that happens.


I think that you are getting slim data out of your rumors.  The mostly likely cause of his disappearance was the German government (his own) as it was apparent that he was marketing his engine to the British navy in the leadup to the first world war.  The German navy already had the tech, and likely desired to keep the advantage.  He boarded a ferry to cross the English channel, and never disembarked, and his body was never found.

That's rough the US lets it's capitalists sell to the enemy.

moneyandtech.com
@moneyandtech @jeredkenna
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294
Merit: 250



View Profile
April 18, 2011, 09:14:31 PM
 #171

That's rough the US lets it's capitalists sell to the enemy.

Not really. There are and have been export controls for quite some time.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532
Merit: 500


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
April 20, 2011, 02:28:39 PM
 #172

That's rough the US lets it's capitalists sell to the enemy.

Not really. There are and have been export controls for quite some time.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
Oh, yeah those work so well. So well, there were brand new ford trucks driving down the Ho Chih Minh (I probably butchered that) Trail while US troops drove around in WWII-era willys jeeps. To their credit, I haven't heard anything about troops being suicide-bombed by new tauruses, but that's probably an economics thing more than anything. (ie: Why buy a new car just to blow it up?)

The lesson here? The market is the original fault-tolerant network. It routes around damage.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
wb3
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112
Merit: 10


^Check Out^ Isle 3


View Profile
April 28, 2011, 08:13:41 PM
 #173

That's rough the US lets it's capitalists sell to the enemy.

Not really. There are and have been export controls for quite some time.

http://www.bis.doc.gov/licensing/exportingbasics.htm
Oh, yeah those work so well. So well, there were brand new ford trucks driving down the Ho Chih Minh (I probably butchered that) Trail while US troops drove around in WWII-era willys jeeps. To their credit, I haven't heard anything about troops being suicide-bombed by new tauruses, but that's probably an economics thing more than anything. (ie: Why buy a new car just to blow it up?)

The lesson here? The market is the original fault-tolerant network. It routes around damage.

The Irony in that is if they were buying brand new "GM" cars to blow up, there would be a lobby and a host of politicians for selling the cars to them first. It is not the cars that kill people, its the people that kill people.

Net Worth = 0.10    Hah, "Net" worth Smiley
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [All]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!