Josh F

This is about ethics now, which is cool, it is a better topic. If the argument is that bitcoin is harmful then I would like to understand more about that position. If the argument is that bitcoin is just not a wise investment, I kindly need to point out that the free market is based on voluntary purchases. When I think of the most philosophically consistent application of that principle to money, I think we might both agree, that the absolute best thing is a free market of currencies. A market in which anyone is free to try any old thing without restriction, including gold and silver, and even Disney dollars if they want. Now, for this reason I support ideas like eGold and frankly any other currency. However, the United States government and I apparently do not agree on this topic. And as such they have repeatedly crushed these otherwise likely vibrant and brilliant currencies. They crushed them because those currencies were backed by tangible assets (Gold mostly). In our current market, we do not have the luxury of being able to trade currency with "intrinsic value." What then must we do, beat our heads against walls? Cut open our wrists? Storm the Bastille? Or can we create something that is, at best, an improvement upon our own systems? Can we sneak past the guards? Can we unmask Oz? Can we find value in something which makes us more free?

The most important thing for me though is really trying to understand your personal motivation. This topic is something you care greatly about. Your activism against bitcoin is so inconceivable for me, it routinely frustrates and baffles me. When it comes to the potentially devastation of bitcoin, is it worse than people losing a bet on gambling? Without explaining any more about WHY it will fail, Can you please provide some personal insight into what you feel is dangerous about bitcoin? I really really want to understand what the bigger issue with bitcoin is for you!

Heroin is not something merchants can sell, either. With bitcoin being illegal, mining pools with dry up, as will legal services, making it more scarce. It is still incredibly useful for black markets, but with its illegality comes an increase in scarcity, unlike with china's slight ban on bankers buying it. This is the same for money. Money laundered is worth MORE than money that can be tracked or traced. That is to say, if I have a million illegally acquired drug dollars, I would have to pay that million to a money launderer for LESS THAN a million clean dollars. I couldn't say the exact cut, but it is likely over 10%, maybe as high as 50% depending. Money Laundering isn't a consumer good. Bitcoin reduces the risk of laundering money significantly. Now, lets say day 1 after the US bans bitcoin, will the price drop? Oh yes, very fast. Much like the stock value of a whiskey company right before prohibition. This didn't ultimately decrease the cost of alcohol. Lets play out the logic. US bans bitcoin. Bitcoin price drops. Legal companies based on providing bitcoin services will collapse. The value drop will make mining less profitable. This will reduce mining, significantly. Consumer demand will decrease. With less bitcoins being produced, the supply goes down with the depreciation in the demand. So the price goes down to less than a penny. Suddenly, to use bitcoin, you need to be transferring massive amounts of bitcoin. If it takes a billion bitcoin to launder a million dollars, but it becomes increasingly harder to acquire the billion bitcoin, then the price will start to increase. Suddenly, the only bitcoins you'll be able to get are being held illegally, and are extremely hard to buy and sell. Without massive exchanges like mtgox, the ability to buy and sell bitcoins becomes harder. This increases the scarcity. Additionally, holding, mining, or trading bitcoin is illegal, and thusly is now more expensive because it is higher risk. Finding someone to buy bitcoins from, or finding someone looking to buy bitcoins will mirror the drug market. We all understand that if Walmart sold heroin, the price would go down. Heroin is expensive because the entire supply chain has to remain discrete, which increases the distribution costs. It could come to be that you need to find a shady bitcoin dealer who will buy or sell you bitcoins.

You're making a distinction that isn't valuable. Currency is always based on people's belief in it as a viable technology, all free markets are based on people's demand. People not only want bitcoin, but have already used it as a currency. Saying it isn't a currency is ignoring reality. Now, is it in a bubble? That is an unproven assertions. Is it going to pop or grow? Is it going to change the world? I don't know. But we do KNOW that it is being used as a currency. Right? Saying it isn't a currency requires a special set of ideological blinders. The most important topic here, is what is the motivation behind some of the people in this community to discredit bitcoin? Why is showing people that it is a bad idea so important to you? Why waste your breath on VOLUNTARY ACTIONS by human beings. This is simply NOT libertarian ethics, but defending the status quo, and attacking one of the most promising movements to fundamentally change the world's economy. There is only so many times someone can categorically ignore everyone's arguments, repeating "its just hard to explain" as a defensible excuse, before we all realize they're just being jealous haters.

Bitcoins already disproved this, since it is being used as money. Other types of money have disproved this as well, including modern fiat, tally sticks, and more. If a theory is invalidated by evidence, it was not correct.

We have our foreskins dissected.... to be fair... that happens even if you do enter the covenant.

Every reply follows the exact same pattern I was horribly abused by my parents. It was discipline. I am better for it. I still love them. I abuse my children. What I read? I hate my parents. I've become them. I hope they love me. I abuse my children for them.

oh wow.

One thing I was thinking about too, is too much of his moral theories are about comparing good to good and bad to bad. In the context of a "greater good" the implication is that there is a "lesser" good. It is almost like some point system, right? Like if your action does 5 good points, but 3 bad points, then it is a net positive. In objective moral theory, something that is wrong is just always wrong. Murdering someone to save the lives of 10 people is still wrong. You still murdered the guy and murder is wrong. Making that choice is a different matter, and later justifying it to yourself, but the part where you murdered the guy is wrong in all ways and all times. Why do you say that? I'd be really happy with a world where there just wasnt evil, and maybe a little bit of good. That would be cool, tons of amoral things happenings, lot of people hanging out doing fun stuff. The focus on "good" reminds me a lot of religion, which is always trying to get you to do something. I don't really know how to prove if something is good, just that it isn't evil. Good seems more subjective.

Both, because today we're dealing with massive inflation of the money supply. A deflationary model does make it harder to get cheap loans. Right now banks are getting their $ almost for free. The result is that people who dont qualify for loans are receiving them. In a deflationary economy you'd actually have to show your ability to earn a profit or pay off a loan before being given one.

I don't believe you guys are making a fair effort to understand my argument. Repeating the same points without acknowledging the previous rebuttals tells me this conversation isn't about understanding the truth. In that past that would have been frustrating for me, but instead I simply don't feel motivated to continue this particular discussion about the definition of science with you guys. Good luck!

Yes, there would be less capitol investments. The market is over invested (infested) and poor investment choices have been subsidized. Reducing investment is the FREE MARKET'S method of creating regulation.

Well, but in the moment you weren't feeling empathetic towards this guy, you were feeling sketched out right? Maybe if you were thinking "oh poor sociopath, he just needs someone to give him love" you'd be paying his bills in no time.Here's the bad news, good luck finding a lawyer who isn't sleezy!

This point isn't particularly relevant to my argument. If it makes more sense for you to add the word Method to the end of the instances where I say Science, that is fine. Those points still stand, since the only aspect of science, as you define it, that is relevant to morality is the logic. Making a distinction between those two things is much more useful than trying to blur them together. To be really honest, on the topic of tricks, this argument is a trick. The trick, or logical fallacy, is called equivocation. It is where you try to blur the definition between two things. The reason behind distinguishing between logic and science is the important part. Do you see what I mean? Again, to quickly reiterate my above argument: trying to equivocate science with logic is not helpful for understanding my argument; which is that empiricism is irrelevant to moral claims. Logic is the only tool for discerning the objective morality of a behavior. If Sam Harris's definition of Science is both empiricism and logic, then he is only half right (wrong) to say that science is the best tool for evaluating a moral claim.

This sentence is a contradiction, right? How can something guide you, but also be contained within? Like if I used a dictionary to guide me while reading a book, you can say the book uses language, but not that a dictionary was in the book. So yes, science definitely has to use logic, but no logic is not "within" science. Science or the scientific method specifically refers to empiricism, the second best way to determine the truth of something. I am not sure what the difference is between a way to determine if something is moral, and a moral theory. I think you're incorrect on this as well.

My reply:Without universal preferences, there would be no difference between morality and aesthetics. So what is morality? Morality and values depend on the universal preferences of conscious minds.Any system which puts morality in a consequentialist framework, by limiting morality to the subjective suffering of people, are in opposition to objective principles. Your thesis is incorrect because it is making objective claims about subjective experiences. Your next thesis that science is the only tool capable of discerning right from wrong is also incorrect. Logic and reason, based on first principles, are more accurate methods of verifying truth statements than scientific, or empirical, studies. 1+1=2 by definition, you don't need to test this theory out in the real world. Similarly, by definition, there are universally preferable behaviors. Murder is wrong, not because you can scientifically calculate the consequences of murder, but because by definition murder is a behavior which can not be universally preferable. That is to say, the minute you want to be "murdered" it is no longer murder, but assisted suicide. By definition, murder is an act you don't prefer, and no one can ever prefer, and is thus immoral.When it comes to public policy, you may be able to use the scientific method to demonstrate that, with all likelihood, the consequences of an action will be positive or negative to the majority of those effected. This positive or negative outcome has nothing to do with morality, though. Morality is about universal, or objective, human preferences.In the classic Utilitarian argument, where you can choose to save the lives of 10 people or 100 people, it is said to be morally good to save 100 people over the 10. However, both acts are fundamentally good and moral. The top-down morality that is employed by governments and intellectuals is based on placing people in almost god like rolls as they determine the outcome for millions of people. This unnatural (and fundamentally immoral) perspective is not about human action, but about social policy. To your last point, no cultural value is moral or can be, cultural values by their definition are things which can't be universalized. Murder is wrong under all conditions regardless of culture.In short, you can't have an objective theory of morality based solely on subjective experiences. Additionally a subjective theory of morality would be akin to aesthetics. "I like HipHop" is not a moral argument. "Hot Dogs make my stomach hurt" does not make hot dogs bad or wrong or immoral. The subjective feelings of individuals suffering is not something you can universalize. And if it can't be universal, then it isn't always true (again, by definition). And well, if it isn't always true, then it isn't a particularly useful framework for morality.-Your Neighborhood ObjectivistJosh Fuchssend me yo monah!

Is this a true story?!?! That is epically fucked up. It reminds me of Sophie's choice or something. Like how can you look your conjoined twin in the face knowing they're going to be killed to keep you alive, wow!

This is great, molyneux and schiff. Who is next? I vote praxgirl

I don't get it, you say "I know he gets this behavior from his dad" and in the same paragraph "Where did this come from???" If I can be really frank, what it sounds like is that you severely abused your children, and have put up this wall of "my ex did it" when the truth is that you had an equal part. And it is great that you're here, moving on, trying to learn new things. The first thing is a fair evaluation of the trauma you've induced, trying to raise children in a violent home means a lot of things about you. Blaming your ex and the children will not serve you to prevent abusing them in the future. I know you feel judged already, but that is in direct response of you NOT holding yourself accountable anywhere in this thread. Like you, many of us here have been similarly abused, and spent a lot of time and pain and energy working on ourselves. It is easy for us to pick up on the defensiveness in your language. You've said things are everyone else's fault except your own, and you've asked for help to change those behaviors which you don't like. Do you feel guilty? And how do you contend with your guilt? Do you tell the kids "you're like your father" or "this is your father's fault"? Do you scream at them? Do you cry? Help us fill in the picture a little better please. And some family therapy might be really useful. School trauma councilors will meet with students when their friends die, and police with assign psychologists to rape victims. What about someone your kids can talk to?

Are you familiar with the concept called the Non-Aggression Principle?

Reading this, I was frozen by the horror and terror of the history of your life. I am so deeply and profoundly sorry for you. Listen, you need to leave. You are not safe.

so the thing about there being these tensions where things contradict... I feel like sometimes this site has the opposite of that. Things at first which sound like a contradiction but upon further examination is not... and it is a fantastic release of tension... some examples... You dont have to do anything You are goign to die, and should do something you love with all your heart Your family of origin is corrupt Family is important to healthy development Dont be harsh on yourself Hold yourself to a higher standard

im voting you down right now. Do you know why?

So negative 91, and you just dont know how it happened? Cmon man. Big difference to the other guy talking about a neg vote one time. One neg vote from an idiot is likely nothing, I've gotten some I'm sure, but 91 means something, right?

Well is their a true tension between giving yourself room to make mistakes and holding yourself to a high moral standard? I only ask this because like you I'm kind of trying to do both. I'm into being an entrapaneur, which is all about making mistakes and taking risks, where as morally I am less lenient.