Topic: If you don't like it, then leave. (Read 6252 times)

That's amazing! That means that I truly own SO MUCH STUFF BECAUSE I NEVER WRITE DOWN MY PASSWORDS!

My opinion:  A true Bitcoiner takes his private keys to his grave.

What I like about Bitcoin is that it already has an archaic type of "social justice" built in:

The only way that you can call your Bitcoins truly yours is to store the password to your encrypted wallet in your head and in your head only.  

Any other storage method is corruptible. Attorneys can be bribed, Bank vaults can be plundered, loved ones can be conned.

So de facto, you can either assume full ownership of your BTC or you can have conditional ownership with the chance of passing them on to your heirs (and various degrees in between).

But you can't get more of one without sacrificing the other.

Actually there were three questions in there.
I disagree. Explain why "Everything" doesn't include tangible goods. Then the other parts too.

Both.

Isn't tangible? Or isn't enforceable?
Well, it's certainly tangible. And enforceable? You're all stealing, and you won't stop. I should just get a BFG and go postal on all of you. Or do you propose that I'm not fully entitled to my claim?

No, it isn't.

I'm an organism and I claim everything, known and unknown, seen and unseen. Stop stealing from me.

Hey, if you can be silly then so can I. Most of it is tangible and enforcable, well, since you're all stealing I suppose I should go out and "force" you to stop.

Tangible and enforceable claims.

I am an organism and I claim Alaska.

Dibs.

If an organism has a right to live and sustain, it must be fully entitled to the resources it claims.

For the same reasons I don't commit suicide.

Then why do you post?

Huh? I'm sure there was a point in there somewhere. Care to elaborate?

http://img.izismile.com/img/img4/20110826/1000/awesome_classic_movie_gifs_02.gif

What? "Since nothing matters, every argument is dead."

Why the hell are you even here? Just cut and paste that quote right there and never type anything else.

We may have gotten off track, but it was an interesting track, and substantive, with the exception of your contributions. Get the hell out of these forums, Atlas. You have nothing to add around here with your crap.

Heh, as a nihilist and an admirer of Ragnar Redbeard, I agree with you. So the most powerful whim wins. Gotcha. There is little to argue here. If we bring the argument to nihilism, there is little point. I guess the thread is over.

I mean, fuck, man. Are you just trolling? Wasn't it clear we were trying to justify our moral preferences from the beginning? Of course we know there is no objective meaning or value. We don't need a lesson in that.

You guys are barking up the wrong tree, entirely. The important point is to ask yourself about property rights. Real, economic property rights. Not free market property rights. Not legally defined property rights. The kind of right that specifies ONLY (and I mean only, Atlas) a measurable ability to control a resource, under whatever circumstances.

Thus, in this conception, if you and a friend find a briefcase full of gold in the woods, who owns it? In this example, the one with the bigger machine gun. This is the kind of property right I'm discussing.

When you talk about these issues, the idea of "theft" becomes extremely interesting, and only relatable to modern law; was the appropriation of Native land in the US theft? Was it an efficient (i.e. less wasteful) use of the land by transferring property rights (THROUGH FORCE, ATLAS, NOT LAW) from those who couldn't defend it to those who could? Was it right?

You have to recognize that on some level, people are uncomfortable with this low-level idea of might makes right, because it's violent and power-consolidating, which reduces choice. You have to consider some kind of collective mechanism if you want to move beyond that, and if you do, there's no way to guarantee perfect distribution.

Under many circumstances, private organizations operate under might makes right, through the use of wealth to coerce government monopoly on violence. This is a huge problem, and exactly what successful, effective regulation is supposed to counteract.

Sad that it doesn't work, but without it entirely, it certainly won't work.

Nope. Unless you hate life and believe an organism has no inherent right to sustain.

Really? Never? You can't think of a single situation where theft could be justified?

Alright, this discussion is staying civil, and I appreciate that, so I suppose I can set aside my frustration for a bit.

The problem with your "taxes are theft" argument is that you're having trouble with the "tyranny of the majority"-type thinking. You see a limit on choice imposed by the government through threat of violence, which I assume you understand is where taxation legitimacy comes from. And yes, it's absolutely true that this limit on choice exists. It's not smoke and mirrors, and redistribution happens in ways that are sometimes "unfair," in your use of the word.

However, your alternative, to let private organizations operate where once public organizations did, brings a very significant problem: free markets guarantee the opportunity of freedom only in perfectly competitive scenarios where goods can be well-priced, and the degree of competitiveness has an enormous dependency on things like access to wealth. In short, unequal distribution of wealth results in unequal access, and unequal access provides the mechanism for a minority to commit theft. It should be needless to say that the primary incentive of private business is the accumulation of wealth for this very purpose. This is the entire point of anti-trust: monopoly allows the tyranny of the minority to manipulate and steal from the majority through wealth (or resource) control.

It's sad, but you really get two choices: you can have a system that at least purports to operate based on a public, collective mandate, or you can have one that rewards consolidation of decision-making power in to very few hands.


No, Joe Sixpack certainly isn't a fool. He'd much rather spend that money on a Sony than cholera research, and I'll be damned if anyone tells me that that Sony does less good than curing cholera.  

I mean seriously, did you even read what you wrote? Your last sentence should tell you why "dollar voting" brings you to the lowest common denominator with difficult-to-price goods (like public health, that are literally necessary for our survival), where everyone buys a coke instead of supporting needle exchanges: replace the word "objections" with "concerns."