What if Bitcoin could end Hunger or Proverty or both ?

[rebuilder]

Our basic rights are inherent. You cannot give someone else rights. That would make them your slave.

Inherent? What do you mean?

Rights ARE given, they are something subjects have. If you are subject to the rule of some party, they may grant you rights. If you are sovereign, the concept of rights is meaningless.

[1713893591]

1713893591

[1713893591]

1713893591

[1713893591]

1713893591

[1713893591]

1713893591

[foggyb]

Inherent? What do you mean?

Rights ARE given, they are something subjects have. If you are subject to the rule of some party, they may grant you rights. If you are sovereign, the concept of rights is meaningless.

I never said they weren't given, I said they weren't given by people. Inherent means permanent, essential, a characteristic attribute.

[rebuilder]

No. Rules are created by rulers.

Rights are created by mutual voluntary agreement.

An agreement, which makes the participants subject to the system they create. Subjecthood doesn't imply a personified ruler.

[foggyb]

Rights are created by mutual voluntary agreement.

That leaves you free to break the agreement at any time, then. You're the dictator of anyone you choose. That's a contradiction of your statement that you treat others as you would treat yourself.

Or, are you like Obama. Yes, I allowed NADA to pass, but I won't use it.

[rebuilder]

I never said they weren't given, I said they weren't given by people. Inherent means permanent, essential, a characteristic attribute.

Given by who? I should note I'm not interested in religious discussion here.

[foggyb]

Given by who? I should note I'm not interested in religious discussion here.

Right, if its your religion we're discussing, then that's ok? How kind of you. 

[foggyb]

You're a dictator then?

[rebuilder]

Society exists, and it is real. It's a system whether you like it or not.

I fully agree.

Right, if its your religion we're discussing, then that's ok? How kind of you. 

I just don't think religion is something that can be used to further this discussion. I worried you were hinting at a deity behind these rights, which is a dead end to me since I don't believe in any. The discussion can't go on from that. That's the main point of a secular society, to create a common ground.

[foggyb]

There is no contradiction, I told you I am non-aggressive. You should protect yourself though, no one is going to do it for you.

Turning a blind eye to aggression on others is akin to being the source of said aggression.

If you truly treated others as you treated yourself, you would not claim to deny others their rights (the authority is not yours.)

But of course, you are merely defending YOUR OWN rights in self-defense. You are NOT taking other's rights away.

[foggyb]

I just don't think religion is something that can be used to further this discussion. I worried you were hinting at a deity behind these rights, which is a dead end to me since I don't believe in any. The discussion can't go on from that. That's the main point of a secular society, to create a common ground.

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

[rebuilder]

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

[foggyb]

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

You're right. Traditional science is a limited tool. However my view is that by combining the study of logic and physical evidence, we can expand our sphere of thought and take over where mere science falls far short.

[westkybitcoins]

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

Rights are essentially a metaphysical concept. You can say they come from God, the Laws of the Universe, our collective oneness, or some other "higher power". But simple physics can't dictate morality, and rights are just a baseline codification of what qualifies as moral human interaction.

[foggyb]

If you can't talk about ideas that you don't believe in, that's unfortunate. Not a sign of an open mind.

I think metaphysics is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, that's all.

Rights are essentially a metaphysical concept. You can say they come from God, the Laws of the Universe, our collective oneness, or some other "higher power". But simple physics can't dictate morality, and rights are just a baseline codification of what qualifies as moral human interaction.

"Simple physics" is hopelessly inadequate at studying the source of information, intelligence, and the experience of consciousness. Like trying to watch TV with a radio.

[disclaimer201]

Guys. Your discussion is quite interesting (I followed so far), yet could you get back to the topic?

The ideas of doing something good with fees isn't so bad. I just second that it be volunatary. Just programme a voluntary 0.001 %btc donation button into the next bitcoin client for doctors without borders, the red cross and or even religious human rights groups. Though I'm an atheist myself, I think they act (thanks to their ability to act) instead of having endless philosophical discussions that lead only to contemplating the world's problems.

[westkybitcoins]

Guys. Your discussion is quite interesting (I followed so far), yet could you get back to the topic?

The ideas of doing something good with fees isn't so bad. I just second that it be volunatary. Just programme a voluntary 0.001 %btc donation button into the next bitcoin client for doctors without borders, the red cross and or even religious human rights groups. Though I'm an atheist myself, I think they act (thanks to their ability to act) instead of having endless philosophical discussions that lead only to contemplating the world's problems.

Sorry for the off-topic drift.

I don't think having the standard client take extra fees, even voluntary ones, and direct them to a specific charity (or even non-specific or multiple chartities) is a good idea, for reasons others stated above.

However....

From what I can tell, I don't think there's anything preventing any given charity from taking the standard client, keeping the credits and license, slapping their logo/name on it, and including such a voluntary fee. I suppose it wouldn't even have to be the charity doing it... if someone knows a charity that accepts bitcoins, they could release the "Red Cross Bitcoin Client" or "United Way Bitcoin Client" themselves. Everyone could then be reminded of their favorite charity every time they spend bitcoins, and be prompted (regularly or randomly) to add the extra donation; or it could just be an extra field on the "Spend Coins" dialog box.

This would avoid a lot of the problems mentioned above, and still allow for the basic concept. Should make everyone moderately pleased, if not fully happy.