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

[Anonymous]

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 ?

[1715055423]

1715055423

[1715055423]

1715055423

[no to the gold cult]

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]

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.

[fergalish]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

A little of topic but since you point it out:

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:

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

[Littleshop]

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]

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. 

A little of topic but since you point it out:

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:

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

[fergalish]

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]

very good

[wb3]

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. 

[MoonShadow]

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.