0.1% guys hold 50% Bitcoins, that's too CENTRALIZED!

[Rarity]

Hmmmm so productivity has increased, yet inflation-adjusted income has remained flat. Perhaps that means non-inflation adjusted income has risen, and perhaps that means the inflation tax is where you should channel your antagonism - toward the money printing that is robbing families without them knowing, instead of toward the corporations employing people toward productive ends.

I do put a large part of the blame there.  That's why I love Bitcoin, once we stop printing the wealthy will no longer be able to unfairly perpetuate their advantages and more rewards for productivity will go where they belong.  As the 53% movement proves, people are working multiple jobs and still not having the full benefits one should expect for that amount of work.  They put the blame for that in different places than the 99% folks, but we are all in agreement it is a problem. 

Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire.

The rich own the politicians and corporations like Goldman control government financial policy.  I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man.  We can't just print more Bitcoin to start rewarding the productivity. 

[1714934298]

1714934298

[1714934298]

1714934298

[1714934298]

1714934298

[evoorhees]

I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. 

If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer.

The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep.

Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively.

[Rarity]

I put the blame everywhere, but ultimately the rich are a target because under a Bitcoin economy redistribution of their wealth will have to be the end goal in order to reward the productivity of the working man. 

If the marketplace values the work of the "working man" then it will pay him accordingly. Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay. If you think the working man deserves more, you are welcome to hire him - indeed if he is so much more productive than his wage indicates, then you should outbid the other employer.

The idea of "redistributing wealth" becomes even more silly when you realize that wealth is produced, not distributed in the first place. What a rich person has, he earned (unless he engaged in fraud or theft), and what someone earns, he deserves to keep.

Wealth is not a pie to be sliced up evenly. It is produced, and belongs to the producer exclusively.

Hey, look, if the redistribution back to the working class that generates the productivity happens naturally then there will be no reason to take the wealth by force.  So you have nothing to worry about.

I think you will find though that once we switch to Bitcoin the wealthy will already start with an advantage.  Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

[BitterTea]

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.

[nighteyes]

Good! But again, anger at "the wealthy" is not correctly targeted. The wealthy are not inflating anything. It's the central banks (The Fed in the US), the politicians who permit it, and the public who votes for those politicians (poor and rich alike). Those are the valid targets of ire.

I think Satoshi deserves a lot of the blame....or the devil(these 2 could be connected if you see black helicopters flying outside).....but as far as targets go though, anyone and everyone is a target.

[Rarity]

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.

Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin.  It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations.

[BitterTea]

Since we can't print money the wealth is naturally going to have to flow from the source where it is currently located.  It's happening one way or another.

The problem is that "you" will never print money. It will always be the politicians. Who are friends with the politicians? The people with lots of money.

Printing money always favors the rich and the politically connected at the expense of the less well off.

Again, I know, that's why I want to end the printing and switch to Bitcoin.  It's a huge benefit for the poor at the expense of the rich and the corporations.

I'd say it more levels the playing field, but yeah, I misunderstood what you were saying.

[Anonymous]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

[Rarity]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

[nighteyes]

Stealing resources from people who have harmed nobody is not okay.

Thats a loaded sentence.

"Steal"...implies illegal...worthless, see 'asymmetrics of will'.

"resources"...implies private property....but where? Most resources are not stored on private property. If its at a bank, thats not private property....a corporation is a government creation and not covered by the rules of civilization.

"harmed nobody"....worthless....unprovable and unlikely. Are you saying they never harmed anyone or anything? Because if they did, thats OK, as covered by asymmetrics of time.

"not okay"....well its OK if war is undertaken....hehehe, are they playing war drums?

[bitleaker]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

In the future, if I ever use the word nigger, it's in reference to those dirty workers you find littered in the workplace; as the word was originally used.

[Edit] I love the text from the link below:

Suord ne fir forgat he noght,
And ȝong ysaac a fagett broght.

[repentance]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

That's not how it was originally used.  

http://www.wordorigins.org/index.php/more/285/

[Anonymous]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.

[Rarity]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

[BitterTea]

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it. 

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no?

[Rarity]

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

That sounds like disparaging libertarians, furries, nazis, or just about any group or individual is hate speech. Rather broad, no?

Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis:  speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech

It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though.

[Anonymous]

In the future, if I ever use the word faggot, it's in reference to those dirty cigarette butts you find littered on the sidewalk; as the word was originally used.

Language does not work that way.  Just stop using it.  I assure you it's not that hard to come up with things to say without using slurs.  You should also keep in mind it was originally used in regards to a bundle of sticks, not cigarette butts.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot_(slang)

The origins of the word as an offensive epithet for homosexuals are, however, rather obscure, although the word has been used in English since the late 16th century as an abusive term for women, particularly old women,[5] and reference to homosexuality may derive from this,[6] female terms being often used with reference to homosexual or effeminate men (cf. nancy, sissy, queen). The application of the term to old women is possibly a shortening of the term "faggot-gatherer", applied in the 19th century to people, especially older widows, who made a meagre living by gathering and selling firewood.[7] It may also derive from the sense of "something awkward to be carried" (compare the use of the word "baggage" as a pejorative term for old people in general).[4] Use of the word as a general insult, not necessarily implying homosexuality, is either a continuation or extension of this older usage[5] or of the homosexual usage.

It is a word with a history of being used not just to demean homosexuals, but to demean women as well.  You don't get to use it as an insult and pretend you aren't using the insulting definition.

Anyways, I won't be using it any longer since I prefer people to be happy especially ones I consider friends.

Wow, what a nice "I'm sorry if you were offended."  You messed up, take responsibility and grow up.  You don't use it because it's hate speech and using hate speech is wrong all on it's own, not because it makes people "unhappy" to hear you talk like an idiot.

I'm a nihilist at heart. I've never been a fan of moral systems. I choose my actions and lack of therof because of my preferences. There is really no other authority.

"Hate Speech" is just arbitrary legalese.

No, it has a non-legal definition.  I already posted it.  

Hate speech is, outside the law, any communication that disparages a person or a group on the basis of some characteristic such as race, color, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or other characteristic

The reason you don't use it is because it hurts people, and moral systems or personal preferences that find value in hurting people based on things like sexual orientation are pretty much worthless.

As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong".

[Rarity]

As I've said, I prefer not to hurt people. You told me that I should be ashamed because what I did was "wrong".

Because it is.  Do you really want to have a deep philosophical debate over the meaning of right and wrong in context of your use of bigoted hate speech?

v Or a deep philosophical debate on the nature of definitions themselves in context of an immature teenager shouting anti-gay insults?

[BitterTea]

Sure, there are more specific non-legal definitions out there that would exclude Nazis:  speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hate+speech

It's going to be a stretch to find one that excludes using anti-gay slurs as insults though.

My point was that it is completely arbitrary. Go ahead and pick whatever definition most suits your stance, though...

[Anonymous]

In addition, if words are truly aggression then I'm quite a victim. I've never experienced more "hurtful" speech than I have on here. Haha.

Lots of things hurt people but a lot of the time people don't really have a reason to be hurt. The fact is you are not entitled to acceptance by everybody.