Arius

No worries. I'm just curious if your idea is a variant on homesteading, or if it's something different. I've seen more than a dozen different approaches to homesteading. I'm fairly convinced that the real-world application of homesteading will resolve as a series of agreements between adjacent land owners. Basically, each land owner will need some system of agreeable boundaries with each adjacent land owner. I'm trying to conceive of how the boundaries could be meaningfully drawn and maintained without first allowing people to occupy the unused area. Maybe it's me, but it seems backward to draw lines before anyone is using any of the land. It seems to me, the lines on a map should be representative of the agreements people have made about land, rather than the lines acting as edicts to limit what agreements people can make. What do you think?

Now, that's an interesting idea. Why is uniformly parceling-off previously state-owned land superior to a classic system of simply respecting claims of the users of occupied land? Simply, why not homesteading? Ignoring, for the moment, that titles to real estate are only assets under an economic model in which the state subsidizes rent-seeking behavior. Cause the cost of defending unused property is currently involuntarily subsidized, and we won't have any of that in the free society.

"I think many of us who agree with a lot of your thinking come to different feelings about it because we see the current state of allocation of resources as itself having been set up by aggression and theft. And so to then wipe out history and say 'OK we’re just starting right now in the current economic situation. Starting now, nobody can aggress against anyone else.' is highly arbitrary and would be counter to all your views, for example, on parents, who remain responsible for the consequences of their actions long into the future." -Ster The question remains: By what mechanism will this redistribution occur? It's true, people have been robbing each other since they could. That history of robbery somehow impedes our ability to not be violent to one another right now? I refuse to be a slave to the mythology of history and ancestor worship. If I didn't do it, I'm not culpable. If I did it, then the first step toward non-violence can be my seeking of justice. It doesn't seem all that complicated.

By what means would this redistribution be accomplished? Fair warning: Neither force nor coercion should be involved in your solution. I can see exactly one non-state solution (but I am quite uncreative). Every person could mutually agree to pool and evenly divide ownership of all property. But, oh boy, I doubt most people would agree to that. That's not to say no one would participate. I'm sure there are a number of people who would willingly unify their resources into some kind of "fair pool". What really matters is that no one forces involuntary participation or forcibly prevents voluntary participation.

There's more costs associated with hardware than the GPU. Namely, a PC can only hold three or four of those bad boys. Believe me when I tell you, the cost of extra mother boards, memory, power supplies, ram, and monitor switches adds-up quickly. Not to mention the heat. 15 GPUs can raise a sealed 20x20 room's ambient temperature by 75 degrees in less than 5 minutes. It takes some serious engineering to expel that much heat from an enclosed space. I thought a plastic fan might work in the window...then the fan melted. A cluster of GPUs needs an actual exhaust system, and the space to hold all the equipment. When you cost average non-revenue equipment into the cost of GPU mining, the cost per MH becomes rather prohibitive... Well, it was prohibitive when BTC were trading at less than $10. However, the difficulty was under 1,000,000. With the difficulty over 7,000,000 (it's gonna break 8 million at the next difficulty check), it's impossible to make a profit with any number of GPUs. The power costs alone will eat the miners alive. This bubble is the last chance for GPU miners to recover their sunk costs and turn a profit. I pay $.11 per kWh. With 24 GPUs @ 750,000 difficulty I could make 2-3 BTC per day through pooled mining. The power costs were $750 per month. I could break-even while BTC stayed above $10. I never recovered all my sunk costs. Assuming power costs are comparable everywhere, a 24 GPU system (which is a big cluster computer) @ 7,500,000 (or 10x difficulty) should be able to produce .2-.3 BTC per day. I'd say that's, at most, 14 BTC a month. The price needs to stay above $50 to break even. I guess fifty is the new zero while there's still GPU mining. I assume all miners, prior to the current bubble, have been running at a loss for a very long time. The major source of cost is power. The ASIC systems use 5 to 10 times less power than GPU systems. To me, that means the ASIC miners can sell their coins for less than GPU miners' coins. I would assume the ASICs will drive the price of BTC back down to $20 or so. The ASIC boxes are quiet, cool, and consume almost no power. Not to mention the fact that you can hook dozens of them into a network of USB hubs. One computer, dozens of miners. To me, that equals very low barriers to entry. Lots of competition in a zero-sum game. Thanks anyway. It really depends on how saturated the network is with the disruptive technology. If everyone buys an ASIC box, no one will enjoy any advantage (network difficulty will see to that). Given the time it took for everyone to convert from CPU to GPU, I'd say there's (at most) a four month opportunity with ASICs. It really depends on how fast Butterfly Labs fills orders. It's a big gamble. I'd recommend just buying BTC. At least you can sell the coins later if it all goes to hell. Good luck selling an ASIC box when it becomes obsolete. Even if you blue-sky the scenario, the market-efficient price for a single bitcoin is exactly equal to the production cost of that bitcoin. Unless the network is saturated with ASICS, the per-bitcoin production cost will be pretty low. If the network is saturated with ASICS, good luck handling the difficulty increase. Like I said, if you think BTC is gonna increase in value, just buy some. If you think it's gonna decrease in value, why would you want to mine? Oh, and for god's sake, don't think I'm an expert. I just spent a few months (and several thousand dollars) trying to make some money at the BTC thing. I learned a bunch about mining --mostly what not to do-- and the BTC market.

Consider this, every hour or so around 1.5 million BTC change hands. I cannot imagine that anyone who was mining when BTC were under $.01 each is still holding 2 years later. I also cannot imagine that anyone mining @ $10 each is still holding. There have been four bubbles in the life of BTC. By now, every early adopter has had a chance to unload their position and make a huge return. It's funny. We only see artificial bubbles in the real economy. As such, we've grown to think of them as bad things. Truth is, bubbles clear-out hoarders and free-up stagnant resources. Natural bubbles are a form of market correction. The largest 100 wallets are stores and exchanges. MtGox has around half a million at any given time.

And there's the bounce at $50.

I should add that GPUs have additional costs which ASIC servers do not. Namely, you can hook more than 2 ASIC servers to a single computer. Most PCs max out at 3 or 4 GPUs. With a series of USB hubs, it would be possible to hook an unlimited number of ASIC servers into a single computer. As such, you save a ton of money on support (non-revenue generating) hardware. Really, who wants a dozen motherboards anyway?

Check out this comparison: ASIC servers @ $247 for 5 GH/s GPU performance @ $239 for 900 MH/s ASICs are, quite literally, a thousand times more productive per dollar of hardware. Butterfly Labs has already started shipping. The reviews from the BTC forum are extremely favorable. GPUs are about to go the way of PS2 mining, lost in the sands of time.

The bottom of despair is probably in the single digits or high teens. We haven't even hit the bull trap yet. There's no point in buying before the dead cat bounce which, given the last post, is going to be near $50. On top of all that, did you guys know the ASIC servers are coming online in the next 2 months? The network difficulty is about to go right through the roof. There's going to be really dramatic unloading and shuffling until the network stabilizes around the new production paradigm.

Here's how I see it. Let's tinker: 1) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area (Government) may not be moral now, but they can become more moral in the future by eliminating(controlling) the initiation of force among individuals. 2) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can become more moral in the future by not initiating force (eliminating the initiation of force among individual). 3) A group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area may not be moral now, but they can become more moral in the future by not acting as a group of people who have a monopoly on the initiation of force in a given geographic area. 4) Government may not be moral now, but it can become more moral in the future by not acting as a government. Government will be moral when A does not equal A. I agree wholeheartedly.

Problem 1: The video's narrator mistakes the lack of a formalized government for the lack of a government Problem 2: He discusses the lack of a criminal justice system in a free society, as-if there's a working model right now. Problem 3: If you listen carefully, the narrator keeps saying "no rules". A common misrepresentation of most Anarcho- positions. Problem 4: The narrator proposes a monopoly could exist without a state. Problem 5: "Improper waste disposal and slave labor save the company money". These are both Commons problems which arise from socializing the costs of either waste disposal or labor. Problem 6: "It assumes individuals will base their long-term purchasing decisions on rational self interest...which, unfortunately, is not true". That's almost a quote from Leviathan Problem 7: Narrator mentions BP oil spill as-if that's somehow related to a free market. Problem 8: "Businesses can be quite ruthless, even when regulated and held somewhat in check. But when they have nothing holding them back"...The presentation had degraded to a savage beating of strawmen by this point. Problem 9: The narrator compares Blackwater in the Green zone to a DRO. Problem 10: The narrator discusses a mafia arising to control a free society. Problem 11: The narrator doesn't seem to understand that the state subsidizes organized crime. In fact, the state creates and maintains all black markets. Problem 12: "Businesses and government are virtually identical" (As-if all businesses are, and must be, authoritarian hierarchies) Problem 13: "Take away the restraints and there's nothing to prevent a business from enslaving its employees" Problem 14: "We can look at...rural Africa" Problem 15: "Anarcho-Capitalism will inherently turn into a state"..."If you go down that route, it may take a long to get back to having a society as free as we have now"...Oh, the doublethink is strong with this one. Problem 16: "In a completely unregulated business environment..." problem 17: "Consensus-based decision making"....Careful. He almost said "Democracy". Nothing new here.

Two day ago, I mailed that very same chart to everyone I know who uses BTC. However, the arrow was pointing to "greed".

+5 points for you. It's totally that secret ad-hom thing again. It's exactly the same as saying "You wouldn't understand, you're not a parent".

There's a really cool conflation of correlation and cause: "Men tend to enjoy many advantages over women much of the time--we are paid more in most jobs"...But does that have anything to do with gender? If a stream is entirely full of red rocks, am I safe in assuming the stream turns red all rocks it touches? Privilege is: Physical qualities a person is born with for which they receive preferential treatment. But that's stupid. The argument isn't that all men should become women or vise versa. The argument is about the preferential treatment, not the excuse for that treatment. The author isn't saying "All men should be women so everything can be fair". The author is saying "All men should treat women as-if they were not of different genders". If the discussion isn't about behavior, then it must be about castration. In fact, all the language of the argument suggests that the physical trait is the source of the special treatment. For example, "People don't consciously assert privilege". You cannot "assert" being a male beyond self-identifying as one. What a person can do is assert the superiority of a person and use a physical characteristic as an invalid, ad-hoc justification. The funniest part is that the author is actually sexist. "but a black man will probably get better treatment at an auto mechanic than a white woman will"...because women can't be auto mechanics?

I can only interpret this action as antagonistic. You specifically stated that you dislike this behavior...then you performed it. Until now, I believed you were sincere but unable to communicate clearly. I no longer believe that. I now believe that you are neither sincere nor able to communicate clearly.

We're not arguing. You're explaining your argument to me. I don't understand it yet. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what it is you're asserting. You see, conclusions are useless to me. I need to know how a particular conclusion was reached. You've explained to me that you start from first principles and work your way up to logical arguments. I believe you. You should be able to explain what combination of foundational principles justify your assertion that dependance and submission are necessarily the same. The assertion that dependance and submission are identical is just that, an assertion. If you can't or won't support that position with some kind of argument I cannot agree or disagree with you, as I have no idea what your position is because all you've given me is the thesis. If it's simple, explaining it should be relatively easy. Perhaps you might consider focusing on developing the quality of your arguments rather than the quantity of arguments you can generate. You might be in a more conversational mood if you saved a little writing energy for the back-and-forth part of the exchange. I should add: your mood does not effect the validity of arguments you advance. Nor does it effect my ability to understand those arguments.

It's true that one person can choose to dominate another if there is some degree of dependance. Something like "Do what I tell you or you I'll let you starve". But that's not a reqirement of the relationship. A person could just as easily say "I'll feed you even if you don't do what I say." So I don't see why dependance is automatically dominance. I see why it can be, but not why it must be.

Why?

Unless a child is a rape-baby, the parent chose to produce or adopt them. Starting a parent-child relationship is voluntary for the parent, and involuntary for the child (as the child does not yet exist and cannot give consent). Presumably, starting a parent-child relationship is mutually voluntary in the case of adoption. A child is only unable to care for themselves for...say the first 15 years of life (I think it's sooner, but I want a good buffer). A parent (or child) could walk away after that without anyone dieing. At most, the no-quitsies portion of the relationship lasts as long as the child requires something from the parent to continue living. I suspect that you are only referring to the portion of the relationship when the child cannot tend to their own needs. This is not the whole parent-child relationship, though it is the only portion in which the parent cannot choose to disassociate from the child. Speaking chronologically, that portion is 30-40% of the parent-child relationship. People live to be about 85. Most people have kids between the ages of 20 and 35. There are somewhere between 20 and 40 years of parent-child relationship which occur after a child has become self-sustaining. I think we both agree that adult children are not required to be in a submissive role to their parents. You seem to be suggesting there is an implicit relationship between dependance and dominance. That's what I get from your statements about food, shelter, and medical care creating the foundation for a power imbalance between parent and child. Could you elaborate on why that should be so? Why does one person's dependance on another necessarily result in domination?

I don't like making incorrect arguments. You keep telling me I'm making incorrect arguments. I want you to help me make correct arguments, but you reject everything I present as wrong. I don't understand why you are being so obstinate. You're here, posting. I assume you want to communicate. So help me communicate with you.

I don't believe I called it a rebuttal. I clearly don't understand your argument well enough to rebut. In fact, I've come to see that I don't understand most of your arguments. Maybe you've noticed, we don't use language in the same way. You correct statements I make about things you've written, terms I apply to things you've written, and definitions of words you've written almost every time we talk. I have a genuine concern that our methods of communicating may be incompatible. You'll recall this all started with "choice". I've been trying to write to you using as many of your own words as possible, to reduce errors in the back-and-forth. My thinking is that your own arguments are more effective responses to themselves than anything I could ever generate. At a minimum, I can't misstate what you've said if I reuse your words. I just want you to see your argument the way I understand it. Not necessarily to rebut, just so I know I understand what you've said. To accomplish this I make a universal rule, from a special case you propose, and apply it to our relationship. Doing this allows me to take the principle you've proposed from one context to another. In this way, the familiar (your argument) becomes the alien (my argument), and it should be possible to look at the reflection objectively. You produced a special case involving "the family". I generalized to "relationships between people", and applied the rule to our conversation. The results were bizarre but comparable. You feel I've distorted your writing. Again, we arrive at this point of you correcting me about something you've written. I admit, I am experiencing mild frustration. Please explain to me, in what way is my writing a distortion of what you've written? I wish to understand what I don't understand.

I return your argument. We cannot function as a voluntary, equal unit. There is no choice, nor should their be, in who is the authority figure. I can't just walk away voluntarily, and neither can you. This bond is the very essence of dependency that the you have with me, and since neither I nor you can just abandon the other without terrible outcome, you must obey me. I must, in one way or another, force you to accept my rules, and you don't bare any further responsibility in life besides being taught, playing, thinking, etc... I carry the heavy burden, and ultimate responsibility, without the luxury of walking away. This makes the dynamic different than with two individuals whom met voluntarily and maintain a relationship until one wants to end it. I cannot do that when you are disrespectful, difficult, willful, and non-compliant. In short, the we "must" embody certain statist principles or die. However that will not happen because I inherently choose to accept the responsibility for rearing you and shaping you in my image. So that's it, really, for you presenting this argument as a possible rebuttal of some kind. It can't happen. Pure fantasy.

A self-identified "pure" thinker:

I would say the answer is fear. Parents are, like all adults, afraid of how liberated children are. Rather than: "Parents spank because they fear THE CHILD and his ability to reveal them as the ASSHOLES that they are." I would say: "Parents spank because the child's freedom from society reveals them as weak and enslaved." The child is, at least at first, invulnerable to all social pressure. Think how it must feel to be an ordinary person with a sense of self-worth all wrapped-up the opinions of peers, and along comes this tiny guy who doesn't give a sh*t what other people think. I mean, man, kids run around naked in public because they don't like the feel of clothes. No shame, no fear. I hope I can be that free someday. And all that liberation reminds the parent of what a slave they are. How bound by the absurdity of other people's opinions they really are. But the parent has spent a lifetime internalizing social pressure as the moral good. So they rob the child of that freedom because being invulnerable to social pressure seems wrong. That's why parents spank.