Topic: (Split) Re: false signal resulted rally in China, and it won't stop. (Read 1172 times)

i would love to hear a rational proof for the non-aggression principal

i think that's your opinion and you are welcome to it. i feel differently but my idea of morality is based on intuition so i really dont know how to make arguments about what is moral and what isn't. my intuition tells me that fraud is immoral and that people who are defrauded are owed restitution. but again if you say that this is wrong i dont really know how to use rational arguments to prove that it isnt.

over all i like your value system not as much as i like my own (obviously) but MUCH more than i like most peoples. if it were widely practiced it would probably lead to results that i would find much preferable to the society i live in today.

Thanks for your curiosity.

Yes, if your sister steals your toy, you can't start hitting her. You can steal it back though.

It's a principle indeed, fairness. Leveling up violence is not fair. Initiating the use of violence is immoral. The moment we accept this we will get a better world, and you also get a better life if you accept this. Don't hit your fellow man, don't hit your children, you will be happier.

Threats of violence I'm not sure about as it is not violence but words. I think it is not immoral but it certainly is a warning that this person could be immoral.

What do you think?


Ps: Sorry moderator for the offtopic split you had to do.

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

Ok so i want to understand your position. Is it a matter of principle that it is never ok to use violence against someone for committing fraud? For example is it immoral to use threats of force to seek restitution for acts of fraud committed against you?

ok but as a matter of principal losing investor money as a result of fraudulent behavior could in theory be a form of murder. many of those people might have lived quite a bit longer had they been able to afford medical treatments that they now can no longer afford, or healthier organic food that they now can no longer afford ect... not defending bitthink I just wanted to point that out.

People defend for Zeng because of two things:
1) The so called 'fraud' was supported by the government then, and he was caught after the government leader was changed and his assert was grabbed by the government without giving a chance for him to pay back the investors.
2) Just after the death penalty was approved, the execution was done quickly before notifying his family.
They are not saying Zeng is innocent and the death penalty is completely unfair.

There're also two things to clarify:
1) He indeed caused people to lose billions of CNY, and was not innocent at all.
2) His death penalty was debated for years online and finally approved by the Supreme Court, and his daughter knew that before he was executed. She just did not get notified the exact day of the execution and did not get her chance to see his father for the last chance. It was not a secret execution imagined by many westerners.

Let's come back to the topic. If BTCChina suddenly disappears with billions of CNY from the traders, then yes, they deserve death penalty. If they allow people to launder millions of illegal income or help people to transfer millions of CNY to overseas (to avoid this, BTCChina has daily BTC withdraw limit of 10BTC for unverified users), they maybe jailed for many years. But if they are forced to close by the government just because BTC trading is not supported, they will at most be charged on taxing and license issues.