Daniel Unplugged

Well said. We do not live in a free society. Almost all people in our society are defensive 'pacifists' who would not dream of defending themselves against the State. However, very few of us are offensive 'pacifists', who reject the use of offensive violence against innocent people. People have it so very backwards.

Yes, and I'm so glad I have the opportunity to say it here: Dark Matter! Come on physicists, you think I'm gonna buy that copout? I know, I know; General Relativity is the most brilliant and beautiful theory of all time. I agree with you completely on that. But the numbers didn't add up right, did they? So you made up some cockamamey bull story about there being extra mass that we just can't detect. Didn't ya? I'm onto you physicists. Whoa, that feels better. Theories should be modified to fit data, not the other way around - Sherlock Holmes

Logic dictates that if a universal law has an exception, it is not a universal law to at all.

Note that there is a strong link between being wealthy and dying from heart disease. That link does not mean that being wealthy causes heart disease or vise versa (it is getting older that tends to increase both your wealth and your risk of heart disease).

I havent read the full article, but based on what I read here, it seems that they forgot the cardinal rule of data analysis - correlation is not causation. It is very unscientific of them, and unless they can show a causal link, their conclusion should be disregarded as politically motivated scaremongering.

The political spectrum

Thanks

Yes economists classify can openers as a consumption good, just like clothing, a washing machine and a lawnmower, but they are not consumed in the same way a loaf of bread is. You are insulting me now. I'm done here. Thanks for chatting anyway.

I disagree. Can openers are not consumed. They are useful tools for achieving a goal (opening cans). Bitcoins are also useful 'tools' for achieving a goal too (facilitating trade). Neither are consumed when being used.

Note that a can opener has one use and one use only, but that fact does not make it worthless, until of course we all get replicators and canned food is rendered obsolete. Those threads are so long. Sorry but my attention span is not quite there at the moment.

Does bitcoin not have value for its usefullness as currency? The same can be said for US dollars. Both US dollars and bitcoin are intrinsically worthless, that is, they have (almost) no value other than their usefulness as currency.

I once tried to use logic to come to a complete understanding of how the female brain works. Does that count? /Joke

Bitcoins price is almost entirely determined by speculators (myself included). Its real (non speculative) demand and value increases every day. Everyday more people get wallets and fill them with bitcoins so they can purchase things. Every day more merchants begin accepting bitcoin. The huge price swings bitcoin has seen since its inception have been caused by huge fluctuations in speculative demand. Bubble. Pop. Bubble. Pop. Bubble. Pop. I hold bitcoins not because i want to take advantage of an irrational market, but because I believe that bitcoin's real (non speculative) demand in 20 years will greatly exceed its current level. If (its a big if) bitcoin reaches a critical mass of users, such that almost everybody is willing to accept it as payment, its value will be astronomical. That, and I love the idea of sticking it up the fed and the government by doing exactly what they don't want me to do; get out of their currency as much as possible.

Strictly speaking, price controls do not alter (short term) supply or demand. Supply and demand are curves on a chart. On one axis is price, on the other is quantity demanded/quantity supplied. Both of these (QD and QS) are dependent on price. In a free market QD=QS at the market price (the intersection of the 2 curves). Only when the price is forced to be something other than the market price does QD not equal QS. Hence, (unless the government fixes the price at the market price, which would be pointless) where there are price controls there will be either a glut or a shortage. Eg. Minimum wage causes unemployment. Eg. Free healthcare causes a shortage of healthcare. Eg. Free roads cause traffic jams. Eg. Free bread causes bread shortages.

Left and right are two sides of the same coin. On the far left is Stalin, on the far Right is Hitler (at least according to what I was taught in school). I hate when people call libertarians far right, we are far towards freedom, not far right.

Could it be that the statist arguments were only appealing for lack of better arguments. Arguing that the Sun orbits the Earth, may sound appealing and may seem to fit your observations, until that is, someone teaches you about gravity, shows you other observations, and argues that the Earth actually orbits the Sun. Then, if you are not committed to remaining ignorant, you wonder why you were once so ignorant. Then you realise that you were not ignorant, it was other people who were ignorant, and they misinformed you about the true nature of reality. Finally you realise that those people are committed to remaining ignorant and there is nothing you can do to help them. In answer to your question: yes. Good people should not be kidnapped from their homes and locked in cages. Since the state requires this, it has to go. Or in words more like yours: In paradise, no one worries about being kidnapped, therefore there can be no State.

Talk about projection. This guy calls you a threat and in the same sentence tries to justify unprovoked aggressive actions against you.

.

I was asserting that I am not guilty at all, not in the slightest. I played no part in any of it, whether by causing it in any way or even being complicit in it.

I've been trying to find the answer to that question for a long time...near total failure. Since the world is full of religious people (and Statists too), I assume nobody else has figured it out either. I suppose Richard Dawkins and Stefan Molyneux have made some progress, but we still seem a long way from having a 'cure'. I think the problem stems from rational people believing (perhaps insanely) that insane people can be reasoned with. This is why peaceful parenting may be the solution: Eliminate one of the primary causes of the insanity to begin with. Prevention is of course, better than a cure.

. Is referencing the National Socialists (as I prefer to call them) really worthy of a downvote? I think his point was valid in the context of what he was replying to. Should we not push absolute assertions to their extremes to see if they still hold true?

Is it your assertion that since I am person, and 'we the people' have initiated force, that I have initiated force? Note that I specifically do not endorse, consent to, or acknowlege the legitimacy of 'we the people' having the power to enforce their will on anyone.

They could have told him to 'get the hell off 'my' property'. Whether or not they did this, I don't know. They have the right to defend 'their' property according to NAP. There is some grey area here (about what degree of force may be used to defend private property), but (IMO) a decent person would provide a sufficient quantity of verbal warnings before having the trespasser forcible removed.

I disagree. If the sidewalk is owned by the store, then fair enough, get him for trespassing. Granted, setting up shop directly in front of a competing business is a dick of a thing to do, but it does not violate NAP unless he is trespassing. The storeowner was violating NAP by arranging a kidnapping (again, assuming the sidewalk is not his property). I think NAP is very clear to on this matter. Of course the cops were making gross violations of NAP and should be (self) censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored censored!

'.... even if to buy drugs....., Change to '.....whether he buys drugs or gives....' I suggest changing the first sentence to: 'A person, if free to spend his money as he sees fit, by definition, spends it correctly, as he is the only one who may determine what correctly spending it is.' You may also wish to logically prove that the first sentence is true (I consider that you have not done so). A proof looks something like this. 1. Ownership is the exclusive right to exercise control over something 2. He owns his money, therefore he, and only he, has the right to control it's use. 3. Therefore, whatever he chooses to use his money for automatically becomes it's correct use. One more point I want to make: If person b chooses how person a's money gets spent, then the money is not actually person a's. Person b is the true owner of the money, since he controls it's use. The government allows you to keep a certain percentage, whatever percentage they wish, of the money that you earn. They exercise control over ALL of the money that you earn. Therefore, all of the money you earn is their money. Therefore you are a slave. Be thankful that your masters let you keep enough of your earnings that you don't starve /sarc.