Existing Alternatives

Seeing how my question is barely related to the original post, and how it seems to generate a lot of emotional responses (as opposed to rational), I withdraw from the discussion. But I do invite you all to think about the boundaries of the state, whether it seizes to be at some point. Maybe one day we find the answer (and, hopefully, abstain from calling the asker names).

At risk of sounding completely ignorant, so, if it all based on odds, could the following be a possibility… Can someone pick up a discarded outdated mining device (I assume there were a couple of generations of these by now), plug it into the wall and boom! out comes a bitcoin. As opposed to, another dude having invested millions in a state of the art farm not see any returns for a long time (or forever!)? I recognize that the odds will be stacked, but is there a chance like that?

That sounds silly. Especially, given the five-year time gap between the two events. Gorbachev is currently heavily criticized in Russia for destroying the “greatest country that ever was,” so he would blame anything rather than take the heat. It’s funny how inefficient economic model, dilapidated infrastructure, growing negative popular sentiment, empty government coffers, huge global empire of propped-up governments, and prolong foreign war in Afghanistan could not possibly be it. At some point newly independent Russian government considered releasing the lists of official KGB snoops and informants. But, at the last minute, they pulled the plug on that, seeing how it contained over 20% of population and fearing nationwide violent reprisals. Any other crimes that the government did own up to happened way too long ago (around WWII) and many perpetrators are dead by now… Even if they weren’t, who would persecute them? The very people who came to power on their coattails?

Indeed you have. Greatly appreciated! I am nowhere near the comfort zone necessary to simply own the bitcoins, left alone mine for them. But wait, are you saying that dropping a pretty coin on the fancy equipment does not guarantee getting coins at the end?

That's very helpful, Thanks! Ok, that one is easy. Just a distribution mechanism. So, in another words, the issue is still way too far to get too excited about. But at some point the mining will become too easy, as computer power increases and "miners" futher optimise their approaches, right? Will we eventually get to the point when the next "miner" will simply become unprofitable? When there are millions of people and computers chasing that last coin (or worse that last digit), in will simple make no sense to start new mining operation, right?

Can someone explain to a newb, what’s the point of mining for bitcoins? Would it not be easier just to create whatever the final number of coins would be, dump it into the world and “break the mold”? I clearly don’t know much about the bitcoins, left alone the mining side of it. But from what I can understand the mining is happening much faster than it was originally anticipated and within a couple of years the last coin will be mined. After that all the computing power that went into mining will become obsolete. If you are buying one of those devices now, are you sure you will actually mine something before they run out, at which point that would become a concern?

Thank you for posting this. These days in Canada IB seems to be the flavour of the year, as huge numbers of student desperately trying to get into these programs. I am more interested in this as a parent... Is it really as universal is it sounds? Which countries have implemented it on a wide scale? Are schools supposed to adhere to the curriculum that you described or is it just a loose guidance? My concern is that by the time that government schools are done with this curriculum you would not be able to tell it from your regular “salute-the-flag” variety.

I think it all comes down to compatibility. Compatible levels of maturity, interests, dynamics and future plans. At that point age does become “just a number.” There is something to be said about under-age dating, but beyond that the field is wide open. Do prospective partners share interests, laugh at each other jokes, plan on having children (and raise them properly), want to grow old together? Similar ages provide only a very vague guidance at possible compatibility, but should never be used as an absolute rule. Modern medicine allows women having children in a very old age, so even biological clock is less of a barrier these days. There is definitely a risk of one partner “slowing down” much faster than the other due to age, like in @Aikenrooster’s example. But age is just one of possible reasons (albeit most prevalent and most predictable). Some people “slow down” due to changes in interests, deceases, handicaps, etc. At the same time, there are some pretty senior folks that climb Everest, run marathons, hitch-hike across multiple countries. In addition, opening up the age criteria allows one to select a better match. It is not that easy to find a libertarian-leaning female, why make it harder by self-imposing age restrictions? The way I understood this was that, indeed women are biologically most attractive at 16. So, it is natural for men to be attractive to them. However, they are not fully psychologically developed. Therefore, they can’t rationally be expected to enter a relationship with a more mature mate on equal terms. This is one of the examples of where biology and ethics diverge. Just because you want something, does not mean you should do it. Same goes for Stef’s cake example – your body desires cake, but you really should control yourself. Whether or not Stefan has ever been attracted to a 16-year-old is really not relevant, as everyone has their own tastes and desires. Just because it is natural to love chocolate cake, does not mean you are going to love it just like everyon elase. What’s more important is how one acts on their desires, especially when one is in position of power, money and beauty (as case might have been for Paul Walker).

I read a lot about the "economic engine" of Guangzhou and Shenzhen. Can you advise on what's there to see as a short-term libertarian tourist to get impressed? Same goes for Hong Kong and Shanghai. Thank!

Very valid point. However, that brings us back to the whole "majority rule" situation. It seems to further support the hypothesis that the difference is more incremental as opposed to binary. In other words, one organisation is slightly more voluntary / less statist than the other.

Borrowing money to maintain one’s lifestyle is never a good idea. It does not matter whether your debt is in government IOUs or gold or bitcoins. Living below one’s means has always been a mantra for many financial planners. At the same time, entering into debt relationship is purely voluntary (at least in the most parts of the world). If the borrower feels that the rates are usurious, they can simply stay away. It’s really not that big of a deal. As an aside – borrowing a quickly devaluing instrument could actually be a savvy strategy, since the borrower would have to repay ever decreasing value.

My challenge is to determine at which level you live “politically.” As far as I can tell, there is not much difference between a condo and a small city. Why one is considered “political” residence and the other isn’t? If you chose to live privately in the woods, you are leaving both condo/apartment and the city behind. And neither one of them will come after you, in other words, you can leave. I realize that this argument does not apply to countries, but, once again, I am searching for that threshold at which “political” residence becomes “voluntary” residence. No, I mean physically leaving. If you don’t like the condo – you leave, if you don’t like the city – you leave. It is probably even easier to leave a city than a condo. Agree, there is certainly a hierarchical structure going on there, with the city being more “governmental” than a community. But then the question is, is it a black-and-white distinction (rape-love, if you will) or simply incremental. Even within a voluntary community you have to abide by certain rules, which may change if the majority votes on it. On the other hand when you move into a new city you are accepting existing set of rules and regs, but they may change, if the majority (or politicians/managers elected by majority) decides so. Once again, if you disagree with the changes, you can leave and move to another community and or city. Now, since when it is crazy to ask questions? Or is it one of those "conform or you are crazy" things Stefan was talking about recently?

Perhaps it's a special case for condos, but who owns the hallway between me and my neighbour? what about the driveway that leads to the building? "WE" own it, collectively. Have you heard of "mutual driveways", when two (or more) neighbouring properties share (ie collectively own) an access road? How is that different from a street? So, analogy does stand. And this further makes me wonder... perhaps, you cant leave a country, but you sure can leave a city...

I am not being disengenuous. I am having hard time determining the line where "property manager" ends and "evil government" begins. It seems pretty straightforward at extremes: a part-time super in the apartment buidling vs. ruller of the free world. When you close in it becomes blurry (at least for me). I feel that the case could be made for the local government (ie mayor) either way. Hence, the question. To your response specifically... condo owners actually own their units, which usually are parts of a building. Therefore, they need to be managed collectively, for which purpose a management company is hired. All decisions (including hiring) are done collectively, usually by vote. So yes, majority rules. The same seems to apply when you decide to buy a house in a given city. And yes, you do sign a contract with the city, bc all the paperwork between you and the seller is vetted and kept by the city. You also pay property transfer taxes and so forth. You can further make an argument that the property tax you pay to the city is more akin to the management fee I pay to the condo, because it covers the streets, and water, and sewage and such. Violence does not seem to be present in either of the scenarios.

Fair enough. To me a leader is someone different, someone who leads by example and inspires a group to achieve goals as a group. As such there will be quite a gap between a manager and a leader. I see your confusion. Let me re-phrase... Example 1: Condominium is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to own and manage something together. Further, the board as a group does not own anything, but rather represents the owner and is selected by vote. Yes, when you buy a condominium you sign a contract and agree to the rules and fees, but that contract and fees are subject to change, if majority feels so. Example 2: City is not a thing, it may or may not include land, buildings, roads, etc. It is no more than agreement of individuals to live within a certain pencil line on the map together. Further, the mayor (or council or whatever as a group) does not own anything, but rather represents the residents and is selected by vote. When you buy a property in the city, you sign a contract with the city (along with the seller) and agree to the rules and taxes, but those rules and taxes are subject to change, if majority feels so. So, where is this majic "rape vs. love" criteria? What am I missing? Sorry, what do i do? Btw, scrolled up all the way to the top - no explanation and no answer. Soooo ... thanks... sorry to bother you?....

Can you elaborate, what exactly is bad about my thinking. Provided, that the question was how is the difference between building manager and city manager is the same as between love making and rape. Btw, it bothers me when people rather than attempt to answer a question, just say - "your thinking is bad".

Managing resources does not make one a leader. Unless we have variance on what the word "leader" means. Let's try this. Example 1: I live in a condo, I am an owner, so I pay maintenance fees. I seriously disagree with the management company we currently employ. Majority of the owner disagree with me. I like the location, so I pay their salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my fees. If I stop paying fees, I will probably lose my property. Example 2: I live in a city. I own property and pay taxes to the city. I really don’t like the mayor. Majority of the city residents disagree with me. I like the city where I live, so I pay the mayor's salary and keep on living there. I can move out or stop paying my taxes. If I stop paying taxes, I will probably lose my property. Now, please be kind and point out the difference. My question was to point out the difference between a city manager and a building manager. Is it still the same to you?

Moving from the area where your family is at risk probably better way to protect that very family than simply dying. Further, being commanded to die to protect other (familial or not) is pretty heavy argument against culture in general.

I think it is impossible to recognise that people (myself included) do not vote for him to be a leader, but rather to manage a city, which we chose to live in. I am actually posing this as a question - is a mayor of a city a politician? Is a superintendent at an appartment complex a politician? What would be a difference?

NAP is designed specifically for humans, capable of making ethical decisions. Children and mentally-disabled are often excluded from it (depending on the school of thought). There probably is a room for even more universal principle covering all ‘earthlings’, maybe even rocks, air, etc. But it is important to understand that we are nowhere near there yet. NAP itself is nowhere near to be accepted among the humans, how can we expect something more universal to gain acceptance? Take US Constitution as an example of a universal principle, which was great, but explicitly excluded women, Natives and other non-white races. But it allowed for groundwork to be laid for something more universal which eventually included all US citizens (while still excluding those pesky illegal aliens). I would call on you to help us build NAP now and we will help you expand it further in the future. How does that sound?

I read your post twice – I noticed there were no questions, only direct abrasive statements. In other words, everything you said there must be pure truth. But then your very title is questionable: capitalism is a fairly new concept (a couple of centuries, max), state has been around for millennia, so, by definition, the whole “vice versa” thing is not possible. You might have something with the “nature and animals” bit, but on this forum we are trying to build free human society. Until we figure that one out, the best we can offer to the animal world is “non-sadistic principle”. That sounds like a fair compromise, no? Finally, you seem to ignore @Kevin’s question about your personal practices - I assume because you refuse to give up at least computers and other benefits of this Capitalism / State cabal you are so adamantly against. You also dismiss Stefan’s books as “wordy” – hardly an argument against an idea. So, what are we talking about here?

There is also a matter of one crazy dude breaking in vs. a gang of well-trained, heavily armed goons taking over. At that point, would you still resist with nothing but bare hands or quietly pack up and move on? Another point to consider while freedom-fighters are fighting they are not working, ie produce anything that they can consume, so somebody will have to subsidy their very existence. In movies (like Red Dawn and Red Dawn Again) it is usually the local populous that is supportive to the cause. In real life the populous is usually starved by that point if not moved away as well. So, usually some third force comes in with money and supplies (such as Soviet Union and Mandela). The problem is - that third force has some completely different agenda than the original freedom fighters. So, my vote is to assess the probabilities of success (one crazy dude vs. a gang) and consider moving.

I’m with you on the atoms, but the rest does sound very religious-y: How associating yourself with god is different from associating yourself with universe, especially when you talk about not material but consciousness? And if you don’t feel anything, what does that tell you? That’s the piece that I am concerned about.

Your examples do sound like hypocrisy. However, I am sure these people have very plausible explanations for it, albeit inconsistent and / or illogical. But then again, can you expect a consistent and logical explanation of things that aren’t logical? I’ve heard Amish explaining how it’s ok “to be moved by a car”, it’s just not ok “to move a car” – go figure. At the same time they do not insist that *you* don’t use technology, so maybe they are less hypocritical and more just plain irrational. Some people wouldn’t. Stef had an early podcast on Christian Scientists, I believe, who would refuse many medical treatments despite life threatening diseases. At least they are consistent, I guess. Ultimately, these examples are not representative of the entire religious population. A lot of scientific discoveries were just that – discoveries, and not creations. Any religious person would make an argument that someone had to create them first, therefore there is no inconsistency from their pov in discovering things.

No, I get it. But why do I care about it now? I dont have any relationship with the stars and atoms and whatnot, but I did have a relationship with that human form, with memories. Or at least in the same way.