OccupyLA on 10/1 !! We will be there in Bitcoin Attire! Financial Revolution!

[evoorhees]

Actually, there are both "positive" and "negative" concepts of liberty.  Negative liberty is the absence of constraints.  Positive liberty is the ability to acquire one's needs and wants.  To guarantee negative liberty, you merely need to not interfere with others.  This is the common libertarian view of liberty.  To guarantee positive liberty, society must often intervene in some manner to alleviate the limitations placed on people for one reason or another.  For example, you can't reach your full potential if you are ill and cannot afford medical care.   I believe that we need to consider both positive and negative concepts of liberty and work as a society to increase both.  However, I don't believe in coercive means of increasing positive liberty as this only decreases negative liberty.  We need to become a more charitable society, but this has to happen at the grassroots level and not be forcibly imposed by a central authority.  Forced wealth redistribution only pisses people off and makes them less charitable and less productive.  It is not the way forward.  For more on positive versus negative liberty, see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

Well said.

[WiseOldOwl]

Im not saying all mexicans at all, it would be retarded to think i implied that. I mean 1% or less to be clear. The average mexican is a hard working, morally strong people. Im talking about groups you probably dont even know about.
And yes if drugs were legal than who cares about the heroin.
But because they are illegal, there are a lot of problems that go along with heroin smuggling.
I understand that the root of the problems lie with the laws themselves. Im not denying that.
Your "private property" is still still on American soil, so if the general American consensus is we don't want you harboring people from other countries, we can stop you, it is called a majority in a democracy. There has to be some rules to secure liberty for posterity.
The rules are really only necessary to thwart destructive human natures, any more than that and they are restrictive.

[evoorhees]

Your "private property" is still still on American soil, so if the general American consensus is we don't want you harboring people from other countries we don't want you keeping more than 50% of your income, we can stop you, it is called a majority in a democracy. There has to be some rules to secure liberty for posterity.

Do you still stand by your statement after my above edit?

[WiseOldOwl]

The rules are only necessary to thwart natural tendencies, after that they are restrictive.
Like I said ^^^

Natural tendency is to love your country and fight for it. Thus the person who illegally immigrates here might have patriotic feelings about home and attack their temporary residence,. I.E. Wolrd trade center bombing 1993, or the plenty of other examples.

There is a constitution in this country, if it goes against that then it shouldn't be allowed. And if you disagree with that, then you should go through the trouble of starting your own country, might I suggest Imperializing a neighboring country.

I dont want to play the what if game about something that will never happen. Majority is not going to vote to take 50% of income, if they do then that isnt exactly in line with the implications of our forefathers, ie MF*ing tea party.

Your argument is on its last legs when you get to the what ifs lol.

[evoorhees]

I dont want to play the what if game about something that will never happen. Majority is not going to vote to take 50% of income, if they do then that isnt exactly in line with the implications of our forefathers, ie MF*ing tea party.

Wake up dude. Already happened. Add up corporate + payroll + sales + personal income + property + fees and tariffs + capital gains + inheritance + state + local + all the other taxes and you'll find more than half of the average person's wealth is being stolen by the government. This doesn't even need to include the perpetual inflation tax of money printing, or the multiplying effect that many of these taxes are taken at each stage of production.

It wasn't a "what if" scenario - it was a "why do you love a country that does this to you" scenario.

[WiseOldOwl]

I dont want to play the what if game about something that will never happen. Majority is not going to vote to take 50% of income, if they do then that isnt exactly in line with the implications of our forefathers, ie MF*ing tea party.

Wake up dude. Already happened. Add up corporate + payroll + sales + personal income + property + fees and tariffs + capital gains + inheritance + state + local + all the other taxes and you'll find more than half of the average person's wealth is being stolen by the government. This doesn't even need to include the perpetual inflation tax of money printing, or the multiplying effect that many of these taxes are taken at each stage of production.

It wasn't a "what if" scenario - it was a "why do you love a country that does this to you" scenario.

lol,
The country hasnt done it to us forever, it is a corrupt occupation that is "doing" it.
90 years may seem long to you, but to someone who has studied history their whole life it is a drop in the bucket.
Notice how I mention Forefathers a lot. I understand that there are combinations of taxes that even exceed 50%, but it is still less here because those taxes are everywhere. plus most people or almost no people experience all or most of those taxes. and some of the things you stated are the same tax twice.

What country do you suggest I love if not my own? Do you forfeit your car when it needs a new spark plug??? do you commit suicide when you have a cold? It is a fine country, with a fixable problem.

*also, if it is the country doing it to me, then it is me doing it to myself because I am part of this country, so that statement that the country has done something is pretty hollow.

[FAtlas]

I think it is rather clear for those who spend the time to think about it.

Libertarians are happy to leave other people with the freedom to say "no" I don't want to participate in XX activity.

Statists,  want to take away my freedom to say "no",  I don't want to participate in XX activity.

I'm happy to allow Atlas to do whatever he wants as long as I don't have to participate.

Unfortunately,  Atlas would advocate that force and violence be used against me to compel me participate in whatever government plan he is advocating.

Because of people who share Atlas' world view, I don't have the "freedom" to say "no",  I won't participate with social security,  medicare,  public schools,  socialized medicine, etc.

I think it is clear who is advocating freedom,  and who is advocating compulsion.

Bitcoin tips the balance of power in favor of those who value freedom.
That is why so many libertarian types are attracted to Bitcoin.  (Myself included)

What about the freedom to not drink contaminated drinking water, the freedom to not die from easily treatable conditions because you were born to a poor family, the freedom of social mobility through access to a quality education, and the freedom to live a life where you can be reasonably sure you won't starve?

The reason you are not able to say no is because you also benefit from public infrastructure that was created and maintained by tax dollars.  Unless you're saying you would be just as successful as you are now if you had been born to a poor family in Somalia, your arguments for freedom just boil down to a an argument for "fuck everyone who wasn't as lucky as me".

But this is getting way off topic.

[WiseOldOwl]

I think this whole thread is getting off topic, and I'll be the first to admit I am not helping.
Sorry, maybe we should stick to business more.

[gnar1ta$]

I think this whole thread is getting off topic, and I'll be the first to admit I am not helping.
Sorry, maybe we should stick to business more.

If this is a protest, what are you actually protesting? Or is it just a big bitcoin rally?

[evoorhees]

your arguments for freedom just boil down to a an argument for "fuck everyone who wasn't as lucky as me".

Not really. It's more like, "I choose not to steal from or hurt you, and I hope you will afford me the same courtesy."

Or to put it in your terminology, "I won't fuck with you, please don't fuck with me."

Amazing that it's such a radical position  

[kjj]

What about the freedom to not drink contaminated drinking water, the freedom to not die from easily treatable conditions because you were born to a poor family, the freedom of social mobility through access to a quality education, and the freedom to live a life where you can be reasonably sure you won't starve?

The reason you are not able to say no is because you also benefit from public infrastructure that was created and maintained by tax dollars.  Unless you're saying you would be just as successful as you are now if you had been born to a poor family in Somalia, your arguments for freedom just boil down to a an argument for "fuck everyone who wasn't as lucky as me".

But this is getting way off topic.

These "rights" already exist.  Anyone that wants to is free to find or create their own source of clean water, and to treat their easily treatable medical conditions.  They are also free to pay other people to do those things for them.  But that isn't good enough for you.  What you are really want is the "right" to have men with guns force other people to pay for these things, against their will.

Your arguments just boil down to an argument for "fuck everyone that doesn't have a bunch of armed men backing them up".

[FAtlas]

Not really. It's more like, "I choose not to steal from or hurt you, and I hope you will afford me the same courtesy."

Or to put it in your terminology, "I won't fuck with you, please don't fuck with me."

Hoping someone won't steal from you and asking them to please not fuck with you doesn't seem to be working out for the bitcoin community very well, so far.

[evoorhees]

Not really. It's more like, "I choose not to steal from or hurt you, and I hope you will afford me the same courtesy."

Or to put it in your terminology, "I won't fuck with you, please don't fuck with me."

Hoping someone won't steal from you and asking them to please not fuck with you doesn't seem to be working out for the bitcoin community very well, so far.

I've had much more stolen from me by the government... and of course the government theft will continue. At least with bitcoin, people can educate themselves and be prudent with whom they trust. A diligent person can be relatively safe with bitcoin. A diligent person has no such benefit when it comes to matters of the state, social engineering, and economic planning. 

[phillipsjk]

All property can be traced back to the commons. No man is an island. It is not theft when you are expected to contribute to upkeep of the commons.

People can't choose how much property their families control when they are born. In biblical times, property rights only lasted 49 years. When Copyright was invented, works lapsed into the public domain after 14 years. Rampant privitization of the commons is theft in my opinion. Property rights have merit: even animals understand the concept of territory; but there has to be a happy medium.

In my opinion, the "happy medium" is reached when collective rights and individual rights are perfectly balanced. It is difficult to achieve, but it is the only way anarchy can work. I find "Anarcho-Capitalist" and "Anarcho-Communists" contradictions in terms.

[evoorhees]

All property can be traced back to the commons. No man is an island. It is not theft when you are expected to contribute to upkeep of the commons.

Try tracing any property "back to the commons" and you will find it is quite impossible to do. The chain of property ownership is flawed and fallible. Yet for the vast majority of property, there is no contention as to its owner. Nobody out there claims ownership of my computer, nor my car, nor any of the things I have. In those cases of a property dispute, that is a good role for courts.

And I have no interest in contributing to the upkeep of your commons. If it is of value to me, I'll pay for it voluntarily. What you advocate is the forced surrendering of the product of one's efforts, and I think that's immoral. For the same reason that slavery is wrong, partial slavery is wrong.

People can't choose how much property their families control when they are born. In biblical times, property rights only lasted 49 years. When Copyright was invented, works lapsed into the public domain after 14 years. Rampant privitization of the commons is theft in my opinion. Property rights have merit: even animals understand the concept of territory; but there has to be a happy medium.

In biblical times, they did lots of screwed up shit    It's fine if you want to say privatization of the commons is theft... indeed I don't know of one universal way by which "common" things rightly become private. We can dispute that. But once something is known and agreed to be private, without legitimate contention from another claimant, then it ought to be respected as such. And no, animals have a terrible understanding of private property. Animal behavior is more akin to socialism, where force is used to achieve various ends... and perhaps that makes sense in the animal world, where most resources are not produced, but instead taken from the earth. Humans produce their resources and as such have right to claim them privately.

In my opinion, the "happy medium" is reached when collective rights and individual rights are perfectly balanced. It is difficult to achieve, but it is the only way anarchy can work. I find "Anarcho-Capitalist" and "Anarcho-Communists" contradictions in terms.

I respect your opinion, and I won't use force on you to convince you otherwise. Sadly, you won't extend the same courtesy to me... if you disagree with me, you'll vote to plunder, whereas no matter how much I disagree with you, I will not plunder or encourage others to do so on my behalf.

[jancsika]

At least with bitcoin, people can educate themselves and be prudent with whom they trust.

Bitcoin is not Ripple: the chain with the greatest total difficulty wins, end of story.  You either trust that a (hopefully vast) majority of the nodes are honest, or you ought not use it.  Btw-- how exactly do I educate myself about whether I should trust the people who have the greatest amounts of hashing power?

A diligent person can be relatively safe with bitcoin. A diligent person has no such benefit when it comes to matters of the state, social engineering, and economic planning. 

Great, so let's take economic planning.  I save for a vacation coming up in 6 months, opening an account at one of the big banks that charge ridiculous fees for everything.  I do the math for what I think I will need, build up a little money in a savings account where I get some puny interest, and voila-- by vacation time I have what I need for fun in the sun.

There are obviously big, big problems with the way the banks gouge their customers, but are you seriously saying that a current solution is to instead put that vacay money to work in a Bitcoin wallet?

Either you're completely ignoring the very real volatility of the Bitcoin market, or "relatively safe" is relative to something other than what you wrote in the sentence that immediately follows it.

I don't necessarily disagree with the general tenor of your arguments throughout this thread, but when you chain ideas together in praise of something by minimizing its overall difficulties, you leave yourself open to attack.  That should be elementary to any admire of Bitcoin.

[phillipsjk]

I was worried you would take "trace" too literally. I meant the raw materials have to come from somewhere. Not everbody has the same opportunity to privitize raw materials. I understand people attach value to something they have refined/modified into something else. My point is that "ownership" is not absolute. There are only so many reources to go around.

Some people even go so far as to claim that Capitalism is the most efficient way to distribute resources. I disagree: the "price system" constitutes government intervention that ignores externalities. The reason it constitutes government intervention is that property ownership and contracts are enforced by the courts. Any body controlling a private malitia alternative would become the defacto governement.

I respect your opinion, and I won't use force on you to convince you otherwise. Sadly, you won't extend the same courtesy to me... if you disagree with me, you'll vote to plunder, whereas no matter how much I disagree with you, I will not plunder or encourage others to do so on my behalf.

When people take from or poisen the commons, they are plundering. They are killing me not with a gun, but through resource depletion. If you think you don't need society's help. You are welcome to become a hermit.

[FlipPro]

I am with you guys! FIGHT FOR THE TRUTH! That's all we offer is the truth and nothing but it.

[Cryptoman]

So do we have a donation address for OccupyLA yet?

[foggyb]

Look at all the other countries that have successfully implemented and continue to run well respected national health services you boob.

Please don't include Canada on that list.

Universal healthcare may have been successfully implemented, but its a mess currently.

Six month waiting lists for some non-surgical examination procedures. Actual surgery can easily require a 1-year wait unless your condition is critical.

Emergency room wait times are ridiculous, I have had to wait 4 hours on more than one occasion. In one case a person literally died after waiting for 34 hours in emergency. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/story/2008/11/19/hospital-emergency.html