SamuelS

You didn't answer my question, at all. Was anybody mislead? Value is entirely subjective, I value a nice mountain view and privacy, others value the convenience of living next to a 7-eleven...am I wrong? Are they? Water rights are separate from land in many areas, if one intends to be involved in agriculture it would behoove them to ensure their interests are covered.

How does a subjectively undesirable feature make it a scam? Was this not disclosed or were people lead to believe things which were later proved false somehow?

UPB in one sentence: it is immoral to act on the property of another without consent. Obviously that includes the self as it's own property. The difference between moral and immoral acts lies entirely in (informed?) consent. Lovemakeing vs rape, giving vs theft, assisted suicide vs murder, it all comes down to the preference of the one who's property is being acted upon.

"Let's use cubes here so I don't think of myself as sitting on a stack of nads." - Molyneux, fdr1328, discussing UPB and gravity(?) relating to an aggregation of balls.

Hey guys, thanks for the feedback, I haven't forgotten about y'all, just haven't made the time to respond properly to your brilliant questions. I'll find some time in the next couple days to respond to them, thanks again

You'd only be right if nobody ever added value...in your example $10 was added over costs. This does end up being a problem with fiat currencies since new money only comes into the system from the top, thus the money creators end up with most of the new wealth flowing into their hands, but don't confuse fiat currencies for capitalism.

tjt, I think this was her intro, or at least some background tho more general than specific to this "housing situation" a very heartbreaking story, indeed. https://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/40914-i-need-to-talk-about-these-things/?fromsearch=1

Circumstances, or choices? I'm sorry you're facing that, I don't really know what to say as it's never been something I've been anywhere near dealing with myself...do you have a job? If the alternative to homelessness is to stay w some "lunatics", maybe that's not such a bad option, so long as they aren't dangerous? I would think its got to be easier to achieve financial stability if you've got access to a shower and laundry facilities at least... I don't know if any of that is helpful...hope so.

I understand that the state wouldn't allow it, I don't really know the ins and outs of that, but I get that its the case... Could you expand on the "rife with potential fraud" bit?

I thought about it a bit today, it's been so long that it took some reflection to get it...I think the "my wife" ownership thing bothered me because it was coming from jealousy, and I don't want to be jealous. Not jealous of another man, maybe jealous isn't the right word...not happy with her finding happiness outside of our interaction...one of those "I don't want to feel this way, but it appears I do" sort of things. I really think your OP was onto something...language is important, and even using typical language can pack a lot of stuff into a simple expression that we may not want in there.

I really dig the violets (posted July 14), they're my favorite flower, grow em almost every year...and I like the look of the black swan shirt...I like the cover pic...the profile pic one is a bit "busy" w all the texturey stuff on the right side...as they say, beauty is in the eye of the beholder... I'm no art critic though, I went to a museum in Chicago once and saw a bunch of "great impressionist paintings" and thought they were all horrible, like the artists just needed to wear glasses or something keep it up, you've definitely developed the skills to get what you want down on the canvas

hah, that's awesome! not many have the integrity to admit when they don't know things...that's a very respectable quality, IMO

This is a followup to some ideas I outlined in this post. I started thinking about this in terms of a stateless society and DRO's, but I realized it might even work in the current statist system (though the govt likely would have to allow it as they've got incentives not to)...is this a good idea? a terrible idea? am I missing something? any feedback would be appreciated Disputes arising from unintended pregnancy, putting your money where your mouth is. People take risks. Smart people mitigate those risks, insurance is a common approach. Unintended pregnancy is one of the risks many take, and the consequences can be devastating -- emotionally, spiritually, and financially. What if this risk, too, could be mitigated through voluntary contractual obligations, unintended pregnancy insurance? Below I've outlined, in a simplistic way, two "insurance plans" and the various ways that disputes could arise -- and be resolved -- between participants of those plans should an unintended pregnancy occur. These insurance plans could provide incentives for people to make better choices with regard to sex partners and could provide leverage to "get your way" in any disputes that arise. Being contract-based they're likely to hold more weight in court -- should things come to that -- as it's not just a "he said, she said" situation, but rather a contractual obligation. If such a system were widely adopted, people could use inter-group sexual ostracism to further mitigate their risks. Sure, some people will always be irresponsible, but wouldn't it be great if you could just check the "insurance card" of a potential partner and *know* that your values align? The plans: Plan A - (A for abortion) prefers kids be aborted, or A(d)opted Plan B - (B for baby) prefers kids not be aborted Plan A gives discounts for birth control use, biggest discount for long-lasting injection-type. Also gives discounts for time without a claim. An optional additional premium goes toward incentivizing adoption over abortion, let's call this Plan A(d). Plan B gives discounts only for time without a claim. The players: Manny the man-whore and Suzy the floozy are both on plan-a, they've agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children and have insurance to cover contingencies. Manny has plan A(d), he doesn't want any children but would prefer his progeny be adopted over aborted. Suzy doesn't want to be tied down with the complications of pregnancy at all and therefore has plan A. Sally the saint and Mark the moralist are both on plan-b, they would prefer that even unintentional pregnancies be carried to term. Irene and Ivan are both irresponsible, they have no "abortion insurance" at all. Vance and Veronica don't want any kids, ever, so they've chosen vasectomy and tubal ligation, respectively. They don't have to worry about any of this. The scenarios: Note that payouts/incentives would be an effect of the "level" of insurance one carries, if one party has a $500k policy and the other has a $50k policy, the one with a higher level of coverage is going to have much more leverage. So, what happens when we mix up these variations of preference in the sexual arena, and unintended pregnancies result? Let's explore some of the possibilities. I) Manny unintentionally impregnates Sally. Manny does not want to be responsible for his progeny, he doesn't want children, and he's got insurance to mitigate the financial impact of his poor decision making. Sally refuses to abort the child and has insurance to mitigate the financial impact. In this case Plan A and Plan B underwriters get together and come up with the following options: 1 - Sally can be paid (by plan A(d), Manny's insurer) to abort the child. 2 - Sally can choose to release Manny from any liability, for appropriate compensation, and to carry out the pregnancy and either - a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation in accordance with Manny's coverage. 3 - Sally can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support. II) Manny unintentionally impregnates Suzy. They've both agreed ahead of time that they do not wish to be responsible for their children...these are Suzy's options: 1 - Suzy can have an abortion, paid for by Manny's insurer. 2 - Suzy can choose to release Manny and their insurers from any liability and carry out the pregnancy and either -- a) keep the child. b) give up the child for adoption and receive additional compensation from Manny's plan A(d) coverage. 3 - Suzy can opt out entirely, losing her insurance coverage, and go the "traditional" route of suing Manny for support, her case will likely be thrown out of court as she's already signed agreements not to do this. III) Manny unintentionally impregnates Irene. Manny is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, Manny's insurance will cover part of the expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child, releasing Manny and his insurer from liability. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Manny's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. IV) Mark ("the moralist") unintentionally impregnates Sally. They both prefer their progeny not be aborted. These are Sally's options: 1 - Sally can carry the child to term, receive compensation from Mark's insurance and either - a) keep the child. b) give the child up for adoption (possibly to Mark.) 2 - Sally can keep the child and follow the traditional route. 3 - Sally can, at her own expense, abort the child. She will likely be dropped from her insurance coverage or her rates will increase significantly. V) Mark unintentionally impregnates Suzy, the options for Suzy are much the same as II above, varying only in regard to compensation for the various options (i.e. Mark's insurance will not pay for an abortion and will offer incentives to carry out the pregnancy.) VI) Mark unintentionally impregnates Irene. Mark is insured, Irene is not. These are Irene's options: 1 - Irene can abort, at her own expense. 2 - Irene can carry the child to term and either - a) keep the child and release Mark and his insurer from liability for just compensation. b) give up the child for adoption and receive compensation from Mark's insurer. 3 - Irene can follow the "traditional" court-based route. VII) Ivan unintentionally impregnates Irene. Neither are insured. Irene's options are: 1 - no different than they are today.

I'd try not making any statements, just ask questions and have him expose his own hypocrisy. Or block him, that's more likely what I'd do. No reason your boss needs to be in your private affairs.

What's wrong with people making profit off a speculative endeavor that can change the world? They aren't forcing anybody to buy...main reason we use fiat is that's what we pay taxes with, since we're forced to use some it becomes convenient to use it all the time. Same thing stops them from dumping btc that stops the Chinese from dumping dollars -- you devalue your holdings before they're even sold.

sure she did...as you and Pepin are discussing, it's just how these things are worded, yeah? I don't know that she ever connected the "my" to "mine" as in property the way I did...just her wife status was a description of her relationship to me. language is a funny thing. along the same lines as the relationship/property thing -- when a family member is ostracized, its common to say they've been "disowned"

Well, it seemed, like your OP suggested, that I owned her in some way, that she was "mine", not just "my wife" but "the wife that belongs to me"... It was disturbing because I noticed that particular relationship had the element of owning another that I didn't like when I put it together, yet that was what I felt...like she wasn't an autonomous being, but a part of me...I'm not sure I'm explaining it very well. It may be useful to note that it was rather disfunctional. No worries about prying, I'm pretty open about it, and I've been divorced twice as long as I was married so its not a "fresh wound."

Yup. When I was married I said "my wife", and frankly I meant it. I'm not sure when I first became consciously aware of it, but I do remember thinking it was very strange and disturbing.

Being insightful is nice, but you're right, that's not how relationships are built...being open and honest is how they're built...I understand that if you've been around a lot of crappy people it can be hard to do. I'm not sure what others think of it, but my approach lately has been to give people an opening to show empathy early in getting to know them...whether they are or aren't curious or empathetic tells you everything you need to know...maybe they don't have time/room for more relationships, maybe they're just jerks, or maybe, just maybe, they're receptive...

so, I'm glad you don't support the use of force against peaceful people, if I'm understanding that correctly then we're on the same page there...and, frankly, the rest seems to be a trivial difference (if any) based on a lack of common understanding regarding terminology. I do not, and nobody here has, advocate theft or fraud. If you want to make your own currency, then lend it using fractional reserve practices, I've got no problem with that so long as people are informed and have a choice. Informed consent negates the fraud argument, and if nobody's forced to use that currency (in other words, it's not fiat) I don't see how theft is involved...I could be missing it, but you haven't explained that. I'm not saying I'd be itching to use that currency, but I wouldn't dare remove that choice from others. So, far as I see it, our only disagreement is over the word "capitalism", and by my definition you're conflating corporatism/fascism/cronyism -- basically government intervention in markets -- into the term...you're using the commie definition, leading to much confusion...capitalism isn't government, it isn't corporations, it isn't fiat currency...perhaps it'd be more clear if we said "free market capitalism", since you seem to be missing the anarcho part of anarcho-capitalism. And to be clear, the commies are welcome to go do their thing, just don't force anybody else into it.

That is a tough one...on one hand, it's their service being served via their infrastructure, on the other hand they are using regulatory capture and lobbying to put themselves in a position of virtually zero competition... Honestly, before listening to Stef's net neutrality thing I'd probably have been against it, but knowing how these companies game the system, I'm a bit more "on the fence", only reason I'm not all for it is that others *are* paying, and your use may degrade their service...perhaps not a problem w cable TV, but maybe more so with internet? I'd need more info to judge it one way or the other definitively.

If you understand what "fiat" and "voluntary" meant, you might recognize that out positions are closer than you think.

Who are you to dictate the lending practices of others? Sure, having fractional reserve *fiat* money is a problem, but so long as borrowers are informed and theres no monopoly in money I don't really care how they choose to do their banking. The real question is -- do you support the use of force against peaceful people that are interacting on a solely voluntary basis?

Dwain, you're attaching a bunch of communist baggage to the definition of capitalism. In it's simplest form capitalism is nothing more than employing capital (tools, savings, etc.) toward your ends -- if I use a stick to dig a hole, rather than my hands, I'm a simple capitalist. If I trade my stick for your sharp rock, that's a free market exchange which is an integral part of capitalism. Capitalism has nothing to do with fiat currencies and the exploitation that it brings. Now, forgive me for thinking you're a commie if you're not, but your choice of words carries that baggage. But you also ask "Can one be a minarchists without being any type of "ism" at all? Why should anyone be forced to subordinate their will to a fucking Ideology in order to live free?" Do you see the inconsistency here? You want a government and don't want to be forced to subordinate yourself to it. If you're not forced, it's not government. The hostility is uncalled for, you're attacking straw men and spewing a word salad. If you've got an idea to support, you're doing it a disservice, if you're trying to attack anarcho capitalism you're so far off base you're not even in the stadium.

Big L libertarians are minarchists, anarcho-capitalists are anarchists...yes, we support property rights, extending from self ownership, and we support voluntary interactions including trade. Reading your posts I have no idea what you support, but I'd venture to guess it rhymes with momunism. Again, you're just swinging and missing, if this were baseball your side would be retired. If you want to bash an idea, it would help if you actually understood it. If you want to promote an idea, it'd be good to explain it. One of my favorite country songs has a line that seems appropriate here "you've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything."