FreedomPhilosophy

A barter economy is going to be primitive if it excludes commodity money like pieces of gold or silver. This might work within a commune, but I doubt it will appeal more widely. If it's the desire is to abolish prommisory notes, then what about verbal promises - I'll buy you a beer tomorrow if I can borrow your car tonight? Proudhons anarchist theory "mutualism" included money as labour notes. In a free society it is fiat currency that will probably be competed out of existence.

Taiwan Welcomes New Year with Bitcoin Warning The Financial Supervisory Commission of the Republic of China and the Central Bank of the ROC have issued a joint statement warning against the use of bitcoin in Taiwan. The regulators said bitcoin remains volatile, that it does not have any legal protection, and that it is not issued by a monetary authority. http://www.coindesk.com/taiwan-welcomes-new-year-bitcoin-warning/

Fundamental analysis isn't my thing, the belief in technical analysis is that sentiment is reflected in the price action. I think it's very reasonable to conclude that Bitcoin needs both the presence of ATMs and a significant increase in audience to reach the kind of higher prices that you suggest. These steps make the market susceptible to more government interference, while I do not think this will kill the coin, it may hinder it from becoming popular. The recent double top/double bottom is unparalleled and to me suggests that a new regime is present.

Here are my thoughts about what some have suspected might be a "bubble" in the Bitcoin markets, with of course, the benefit of hindsight.

There are maybe a couple of programs where Stefan talks about visiting dying relatives or going to their funerals and whether a relatives behavior has earned such loyalty. Can anyone point me to these programs please?

I've been following this issue, the big picture is, as usual, unreported.

Even within the framework of the state there is considerable potential for deconstructing much of the system.The government is basically a legislative monopoly, it relies on taxation to pay it's bills. Tax has to be enforced through the court systems, and with the system including a decision made by a jury, then the general public is the ultimate arbiter of what "the law" is or is not. Presently of course the average person has no consistent concept of law and justice and they simply agree with whatever the legislature/judge says. Where this to change then the government could be pretty quickly dissolved. Effective propaganda and the promise of "free" goodies is unfortunately a very powerful drug for the masses. There are numerous examples of civilizations without a state, I mention some on my channel. Although both the state and its predecessor the church are by all counts corporations, corporations such as we know them in business only arose in the 15th century. Since they did not exist prior to this, it is a certainty that they can be absent with the state and therefore without.

Lawrence White spoke at MTSU on December 2, 2013. The title of the talk was 'The Federal Reserve System at 100: Success or Failure?"

These people are bat shit crazy, claiming that shop keepers rob people and then using the army to actually rob the shop keepers!

I think this is totally a personal preference thing, and you need not take any responsibility for the sins of the masters.

if the interest rate isn't increased

The November rally didn't have significant volume behind it, December has been about profit taking from those latecomers.The important price action is around the $100-$250 price range, and that will probably be tested again if the $460 low doesn't attract more interest.

I think the idea is that the extra money for wage hikes is taken from the capitalist "running dogs" (or is it "fat cats"), but not the customers.

Latecomers still had the right to homestead, they just lacked the opportunity. That's bad luck not denial of rights.

This article mentions a program on Channel 4 tomorrow Saturday 14th night (UK) 9pm about psychopathy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2523150/High-flying-lawyer-claims-successful-shes-psychopath.html

When you cherry pick a few pieces of information that seem to support your position you are showing complete contempt for the scientific method. It is lawyers who prefer to choose only that information that support their argument. In science the one proposing a hypothesis must examine ALL the available information and produce a cogent explanation.I have no intention of spending my time telling you why your assertions are wrong, I doubt there is any amount of information that would convince you of your folly, and even if there were the onus is upon you to produce a compelling case for your argument. You have not.With respect to vitamin B12 this is a problem only in contemporary cultures as a direct result of pesticides, artifically pest resitant cultivars and washing of food. Wild primates obtain B12 by coprophagy and insect contamination, meat consumption is not required.You would do well to start your argument with a definition of what an omnivore is and then a set of criteria that determines how when examining an organism we determine that it is an "omnivore".The argument that tool use in an adaptation leads to some bizarre conclusions within the context you use. Organisms undoubtedly evolve greater intelligence, but the results of the application of that intelligence cannot be directly attributed to a genetic process. If that were true it would be like saying we have genes to manufacture TVs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22763464

My conclusions are based on a comprehensive study of a great deal of different data in different fields of biological science, I reject your allegations of ethically driven bias. A scientific theory must account for all the known facts, not just the ones that suit the desired conclusion and the article you mentioned did not account for many facts, and even what it covered were misleading generalizations. The reasons why there is so much debate about this issue is because people who believe that humans are omnivores refuse to submit themselves to scientific rigor, in exactly the same way that creation theorists refuse to. It is you who are projecting your ethical bias into the debate and upon I.The claim that humans are "omnivores" because they behave in some way similarly is absurd and unscientific. How many people to you know that can and will capture, tear apart and consume another mammal with their bare hands like a chimpanzee or dog can? The use of tools to capture and process animal foods is evidence that we lack the adaptations required of meat eaters including omnivores, the same can be said for cooking.Humans that have attempted to consume uncooked animal matter come to some pretty unpleasant ends. http://web.mesacc.edu/dept/d10/asb/chincho/parasites.html Regarding as to whether humans can consume and digest animal products, it is a worthless observation, because cows and sheep can do so.As to whether humans can live an equally long and healthy life consuming animal productions the data is generally negative.

I'd be interested in responses to Robert Neilsens article on the Irish Great Famine, he thinks the free market worsened it.http://robertnielsen21.wordpress.com/2012/08/25/laissez-faire-and-the-irish-great-famine/

Humans certainly can and do kill for biological imperatives, much as other species do and also with cultural imperatives in mind. I fail to see how any of these observations on humans or other animals inform us about morality. History is pretty much a story of people killing each other for some gain or other, imaginary or fictitious. And again I don't see that such behaviour informs my moral choices.Inflicting harms on others causes harm to the psyche of such actors and this observation applies equally to those who harm animals. This is further evidence that humans are not predatory by nature.

You have not cleared anything up or dealt in any compelling way with my questions.You have cited as a source a vegetarian web site, not a credible scientific source. You previously and again make claims to biological knowledge that you are not qualified to make - a lack of qualification that you admit.I have the benefit of having researched biology for over 17 years. Your observations about human dental anatomy are wrong and misleading. Humans have none of the biological traits of predators. "Humans have no known anatomical, physiological, or genetic adaptations to meat consumption." Dr. Christina Warinner Our dental anatomy is that of fruit eating species unadapted to flesh consumption. Chimps in contrast have dental anatomy adapted to flesh consumption, sources available on my channel.The argument that our ancestors did something and we should therefore do it is an ad antiquitatum fallacy.The evidence that consuming animal products is harmful is substantial and continually growing.

Please show me any credible scientific evidence that meat eating is anything other than a cultural anachronism for humans. How does one explain that there are many vegetarians who have no drive to consume meat? Why would humans have an instinct to consume something our biology is not adapted to and that is harmful?So far as I am aware the only instinct that humans have for a food is for breast milk. All the other eating habits we acquire are typically the result of copying our uninformed and irrational peers.If it is okay for lions to kill lions then why not humans to kill humans? Haven't humans owned other humans as slaves for many centuries, if not millennia?

Comparing bitcoin and gold is like comparing linux to apples.

Bitcoin is volatile making any entry into the market high risk, long term prospects are good IMO because this is still an emerging technology that is undervalued. Only risk what you can afford to lose.