Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 28906. (Read 26609527 times)
March 11, 2014, 01:07:09 AM
Up or down?
March 11, 2014, 01:06:09 AM
oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?
so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.
And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.
The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.
The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.
One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.
Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.
Octaft:
I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits. I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.
Nah, I gave him just the right amount of credit. He did indeed say it was about the money. It doesn't make me agree with him, but I am acknowledging that he did mention that the money was the most important part to him.
March 11, 2014, 01:05:54 AM
Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?
http://hypron.net/bitcoinwisdom.html
March 11, 2014, 01:04:38 AM
March 11, 2014, 01:03:37 AM
All these people that say that they like charity fail to take into account one simple fact: The US Government has to be about the single most inefficient charitable organization in the history of existence.
Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.
This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.
Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.
This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.
Government borrowing is stealing. The loans come with promises to repay by taxing future generations. Talk about taxation without representation. Borrowing is popular because children don't vote.
It seems that you are missing some essential elements in your quick rendition of the facts and the ramifications of borrowing or printing.
In essence what has happened since about the 1980s is that the US Government has increasingly let the rich off the hook.. by decreasing and decreasing taxes... .accordingly, instead of taxing them, the government borrows from them... which is really a bunch of bullshit.
Certainly, many of us here agree that there are a lot of messed up aspects in the current arrangement and how our tax money is being used. Also, regular people are having to bear more and more of the burdens of failure to tax the rich.
It's not an issue of rich vs. the poor. It's an issue of people who use and threaten violence to get what they want and people who don't. There is less wealth disparity in societies with less coercion.
Wealth disparities have more to do with regulating and taxing the rich and the companies... rather than questions about coercion... You are really myopic and misplaced in your thinking if you are wanting to view the world through levels of coercion.. and then in the end your conclusions do NOT even seem to correlate with reality.... they are pure speculation with what appears to be your own definition(s) about what constitutes coercion.
March 11, 2014, 01:03:06 AM
Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?
http://hypron.net/bitcoinwisdom.html
March 11, 2014, 12:57:39 AM
The main problem with ancap is that there's nothing preventing a violent gang (a new government if you will) from forming, because everyone else is being so peaceful, and if everyone else stops being peaceful, then it it isn't ancap any more - its just regular anarchy.
Ancap will only work if there is some force to stop people from conducting acts of violence, preferably some force that isn't corruptible. So, until we have open-source peacemaking enforcement droids no such utopia can exist.
Seriously? If you are going to comment about what will and won't work with some idea/concept then at least take the time to read-up on the subject. This has been refuted repeatedly in ancap theory/philosophy. You obviously don't understand ancap. Ancap will only work if there is some force to stop people from conducting acts of violence, preferably some force that isn't corruptible. So, until we have open-source peacemaking enforcement droids no such utopia can exist.
March 11, 2014, 12:56:59 AM
oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?
so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.
And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.
The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.
The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.
One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.
Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.
Octaft:
I believe that you are giving Billyjoeallen much more credit than he merits. I have nothing against Billyjoeallen as a person and I am sure that he is representing ideas that are shared by others; however, he is discussing matters in such a pie in the sky world that it is very difficult to take the various arguments and proposals seriously.
Billyjoeallen is espousing ideas very similar to a lot of libertarians in their various views of government. They have NO meaningful solutions, and want to shoot first and ask questions later - which is likely going to really screw things up for a lot of people. There are these various goals that may be good in their hypothetical frame to allow for more individual freedom and autonomy. And, I share some of those values; however, I remain fairly confident that we do NOT achieve them by running rough shod over the role and contributions of government.
For example, there were a lot of libertarians who thought that it was so wonderful to have the USA government shut down for several weeks to attempt to prove some kind of point about NO need for government. And, really, that government shut down was one of the stupidest gambles that could have lead to much worse catastrophes than what had occurred.... it was like reckless disregard for a variety of impacts. My main point here is that I have NO problem with vision and attempting to accomplish meaningful changes to society and even getting rid of various aspects of government - especially if there are potential substitute institutions that could be implemented. However, I tend to suffer from a fairly high level of irritation when some of these anti-government or less government ideologies strive towards dismantling without having any real meaningful plan(s) or visions that encompass values beyond their own small circle(s).
March 11, 2014, 12:54:47 AM
All these people that say that they like charity fail to take into account one simple fact: The US Government has to be about the single most inefficient charitable organization in the history of existence.
Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.
This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.
Also, if they like charity so much, then why dont they (and others like them) provide the necessary donations, if they're so sure that you won't. The answer is, because they think that you'll end up contributing more than they will, or that they'll get something out of the bargain as well.
This is why a socialist state is fundamentally unsustainable, because everybody wants someone else to be putting in more than them. So, in order for everybody to be satisfied, money has to come from thin air. Some states have chosen to steal from others to come up with this, but the US has chosen to borrow.
Government borrowing is stealing. The loans come with promises to repay by taxing future generations. Talk about taxation without representation. Borrowing is popular because children don't vote.
It seems that you are missing some essential elements in your quick rendition of the facts and the ramifications of borrowing or printing.
In essence what has happened since about the 1980s is that the US Government has increasingly let the rich off the hook.. by decreasing and decreasing taxes... .accordingly, instead of taxing them, the government borrows from them... which is really a bunch of bullshit.
Certainly, many of us here agree that there are a lot of messed up aspects in the current arrangement and how our tax money is being used. Also, regular people are having to bear more and more of the burdens of failure to tax the rich.
It's not an issue of rich vs. the poor. It's an issue of people who use and threaten violence to get what they want and people who don't. There is less wealth disparity in societies with less coercion.
March 11, 2014, 12:50:16 AM
Does anyone know the site that lets you look at 4 different bitcoinwisdom charts at once?
March 11, 2014, 12:41:45 AM
Various public goods and interests are protected through democratic processes - which also requires money (likely taxes, unless we come up with some other means to accomplish the same).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
That is all fine and dandy that you are attempting to be more specific with a proposed direction that could be applied - assurances contracts. So I appreciate your efforts in that direction. NONETHELESS, I remain a little bit unclear about how these assurance contracts may work in various applications in the real world - apart from your fantasy world - such as in a city or a county or a state or a nation.
Definitely, I am NOT opposed to potentially innovative and creative avenues to establish new social arrangements - that may even be beyond our current thinking about societal arrangements. I will caution you that ideas to throw out the current governmental arrangements (including taxes) - prior to testing out new arrangements would be very problematic and negatively impactful to a lot of people. So I would NOT advise jumping into any pie in the sky arrangement without some data about how it plays out in the real world.
So my question to you is whether you know of any examples in which these assurance contracts have been applied in the real world (NOT just hypothetical)... the larger the scale of the application the better - such as a city of 50,000 people or even better a metropolitan area of several million people - however, any example may be useful towards their consideration and how they play out in real world application.
If you do NOT have any examples of application, then you are really talking pie in the sky that is MUCH TOO premature for serious consideration in today's world and even in our conversation here.... Then I would suggest that it would be good to work towards achieving application of some of these ideas in order that we can talk realistically.. and NOT just in fantasy... and we can compare and contrast how these hypothetical concepts play out.
March 11, 2014, 12:39:16 AM
oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?
so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.
And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.
The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.
The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.
One thing I will say about you vs. a lot of libertarians is at least you flat out admit it's about the money. Most use their ideals as an excuse, you're not trying to kid anybody.
Of course, some of them generally hold the ideal that giving government money is bad, but I think those people would much more readily take the "buyout" theoretical offer I put on the table. At least then you know where the money is going, I suppose.
March 11, 2014, 12:32:34 AM
oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?
so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.
And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.
The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.
The donators will be a mix of genuine altruists and people seeking status as philanthropists, no doubt.
March 11, 2014, 12:16:22 AM
Various public goods and interests are protected through democratic processes - which also requires money (likely taxes, unless we come up with some other means to accomplish the same).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assurance_contract
March 11, 2014, 12:12:10 AM
Exactly, thats the point. People do have the same kinds of weapons as your gangs, so everywhere a gang would form, a counter-gang would form, and the winning gang would surely be angry at the losing gang (especially if fatalities occurred), and the losing gang would flee to a surrounding area (or get killed off). Once they flee to a surrounding area, they will pick what they think is the winning gang there, and try to join it, resulting in each area being run by 1 gang constantly in fear of being taken over by its counter-gang (who they will naturally call "criminals") and surrounding gangs who have allied with "criminals."
And then the winning gangs become governments and we're back to square 1. The problem here is human nature: Humans like to form teams, and the winning team tends to punish the losing team, who then wishes to get revenge.
Decentralized violence begets more violence, and violence begets centralization. The only way of avoiding centralization is either reducing it just enough so that no violence breaks out, but government is still sufficiently small, or by somehow getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with a system to prevent violence hands down.
And then the winning gangs become governments and we're back to square 1. The problem here is human nature: Humans like to form teams, and the winning team tends to punish the losing team, who then wishes to get revenge.
Decentralized violence begets more violence, and violence begets centralization. The only way of avoiding centralization is either reducing it just enough so that no violence breaks out, but government is still sufficiently small, or by somehow getting rid of it entirely and replacing it with a system to prevent violence hands down.
Agreed. You cannot fight the natural inclinations of humans, you have to work around them.
March 11, 2014, 12:07:39 AM
oh really? So corporate welfare is not free riding or do you think they can't afford to pay either? Billionaire I.P. monopolists like software companies, movie studios and music moguls who use my tax money to enforce their copyright, trademark and patent claims aren't also free riders?
so I'm either ramming my charitable deeds up your ass or I'm uncharitable. I can't win with you, can I? The truth is you need to think I'm a contemptible person because that justifies stealing from me. This is the kind of dynamic that Statism engenders. It's a counter-civilization force. This is not civil discourse.
And you need to think that I am some government hypnotized sheep to avoid having to actually answer the question, when really I believe that government, especially in it's current incarnation, sucks balls. I'm just not nearly as convinced as you are that magical mystical libertarian land is going to be this god-send solution to the problem.
The fact is, if you're going to use the whole "voluntary donations" argument, then please tell me who is going to be donating, because I'm pretty damn sure it's not going to be the people who equate taxes with robbery such as you, regardless of whether their comparison is correct.
March 11, 2014, 12:02:26 AM
March 11, 2014, 12:01:24 AM
One interesting implication of that chart is that FDR + Bush = Hitler + Stalin 
March 10, 2014, 11:43:40 PM
Lol at all the talk about paying taxes. One word boys and girls: Anarcho-capitalism (serious).
Anarcho-capitalism is one of two logical end-states, with the other being national socialism. Both are completely non-contradictory given their premises (freedom vs. control/safety). I personally don't agree with nat-soc but will acknowledge that it logically follows given its starting assumption.
Ancap seeks to socially apply many of the already-developed principles of economics. The premise of ancap is the non-aggression principle, thus it recognizes the inherent illegitimacy of all government. The problem most people have with ancap is that it necessitates suffering of the weak. If the US were to suddenly go ancap there would be a long period of the weak dying off, a "purge" if you will.... but what people don't understand is that the resulting society would be almost utopic.
I don't believe humanity will see ancap for hundreds of years - it is so far ahead of today's times that no doubt the vast majority of you reading this post will dismiss it. However, as long as we are below the technological Singularity and scarcity exists, ancap is the logical end state. We'll get there... even if it takes centuries of mistakes and rebuilding and mistakes and rebuilding.
The interesting thing about Bitcoin is that it is one of the first true ancap technologies. It makes sense, though - everything follows money and it's only logical that money should be the first to change.
Anarcho-capitalism is one of two logical end-states, with the other being national socialism. Both are completely non-contradictory given their premises (freedom vs. control/safety). I personally don't agree with nat-soc but will acknowledge that it logically follows given its starting assumption.
Ancap seeks to socially apply many of the already-developed principles of economics. The premise of ancap is the non-aggression principle, thus it recognizes the inherent illegitimacy of all government. The problem most people have with ancap is that it necessitates suffering of the weak. If the US were to suddenly go ancap there would be a long period of the weak dying off, a "purge" if you will.... but what people don't understand is that the resulting society would be almost utopic.
I don't believe humanity will see ancap for hundreds of years - it is so far ahead of today's times that no doubt the vast majority of you reading this post will dismiss it. However, as long as we are below the technological Singularity and scarcity exists, ancap is the logical end state. We'll get there... even if it takes centuries of mistakes and rebuilding and mistakes and rebuilding.
The interesting thing about Bitcoin is that it is one of the first true ancap technologies. It makes sense, though - everything follows money and it's only logical that money should be the first to change.
This is a very pretty chart; however, it make nearly no fucking sense.
A chart like this is NOT going to help anyone to think more clearly about the situation of the role of government about solutions about what to do in order to accomplish more fair and equitable societies, whether we are talking about distribution of wealth or the role of government to establish community objectives. Also, it places labels that also make little sense and suggest that these various leaders fit squarely within some kind of paradigm.
It's pretty, though.
March 10, 2014, 11:29:32 PM
I started small, and I am probably still very small compared to you guys. But bitcoin made me a few bucks when up, and a few when down. I've been thrilled, and rather than trying to multiply my "winnings" (which I have neither the time nor the skill to do) I have used it to start up a couple of new endeavors. Those may have more or less risk than BTC, but the really great thing I've absorbed from lurking around this community is the entrepreneurial spirit. Man, people are building ALL KINDS of stuff, and they're gaining incredible success from their efforts. It's great! Yep, some are greedy BFL types or straight up brainwallet calculating thieves, but I have seen more people apply themselves in clever ways in order to earn a living (or a bundle) than I've seen in any other community.
When the talk goes to anarchy and the collapse of society and all, I kind of glaze over.
Hows about we hear some tales about when you had no coins, then two, then twenty, then those twenty exploded? What you have now is quite a bit better than you had a few years back, so what is it doing for you? Fixed up your car? Sweet new PC or Terahash rig in the basement? How is this magical money from thin air improving your situation RIGHT NOW, and what sort of cool stuff is it inspiring you to do next?
PS. CCMF! This is speculation after all.
When the talk goes to anarchy and the collapse of society and all, I kind of glaze over.
Hows about we hear some tales about when you had no coins, then two, then twenty, then those twenty exploded? What you have now is quite a bit better than you had a few years back, so what is it doing for you? Fixed up your car? Sweet new PC or Terahash rig in the basement? How is this magical money from thin air improving your situation RIGHT NOW, and what sort of cool stuff is it inspiring you to do next?
PS. CCMF! This is speculation after all.
Jump to: