Tyler H

Hedge with bitcoin cash. If you had BTC before the fork then you have BCH. Hodl.

I could only remember the bombing in Syria, what other criticisms have been made?

Oh cool, thanks for confirming!

Jos made many good points. Just one minor correction; I believe Stef said his wife was a deist when they met, I don’t think she was a Christian specifically. If also like to add that while it is ideal to find a rational woman who can think and adhere to reason and evidence, any compromises you make are your decisions. If you’re willing to sacrifice truth so you can nab someone like Faith Goldy or Lauren Southern (let’s be honest, if they looked like Lena Dunham you would easily dismiss them for their religion) then you are absolutely free to make that decision for yourself. What Stef has said, to which I absolutely agree, is that the religious instruction of your children should be a deal breaker. You do not have the right to teach children something that is false as though it were true. You absolutely cannot threaten them with eternal torture for non-compliance. Religious indoctrination harms the development of their psyche. An agreement must be made that the children will not be exposed to hell, taught religion as fact, or instructed in catechisms. It could be argued that because children are so dependent on their parents, even the parent’s personal faith could influence the child to want to believe whatever the parent believes. This is why I would steer clear of any superstitious partner. The recent content on religion has been woefully incomplete, absent criticisms that are entirely valid. I recently listened to this podcast that I think you may find helpful. FDR2395 - Mail bag referencing first caller in next call in show. FDR2396 - Said caller (first call)

I don’t know, but I’m guessing they didn’t refuse to allow the existence of a central coercive monopoly on the use of force based on a philosophical understanding of universal moral principles. Anarchy is a broad category that encompasses many, many subcategories. A voluntary society where the initiation of force is rejected would fall under it, but that does not mean that any other subcategory that falls under the umbrella of anarchy can be equated to the type of society for which I would advocate. The reason these societies are mentioned at all is to support the notion that the mere absence of government does not necessarily result in the presence of utter chaos.

Because the absence of a state does not constitute a voluntary society.

Hi Amos. I am sorry to hear that your efforts to connect with your parents have not resulted in an improved relationship. I think your letter is fine. What else could you say that you haven’t already said? If the answer to that is nothing then I think a concise message like yours is apt. Again, I’m really very sorry that your parents made the choices they did.

I think the moral issue is not that they print money, but that they force citizens to use it in the first place. Every time someone digs up gold they are adding to the supply, inflating it, but that’s not stealing from all gold holders. So it’s not just the fact that they create money in their hands by siphoning the value of all other money in everyone else’s hands, it’s that people don’t have a choice to abandon that medium of exchange. If you create your own crypto currency and maintain the right to create more at will, you’re not stealing because people voluntarily agree to that format when they use it, and will wisely abandon it when the scam is revealed. Anyways, perhaps that’s a debate for a different thread.

Yes, how do you prove the other guy stole your idea and didn’t generate it on his own? Also, you can’t forcibly prevent him from building his own teepee because using force was someone else’s idea first.

The first guy to build a teepee; does he own the teepee, or the teepee and the method by which he built it? Is he justified in forcibly preventing someone else from applying the idea to their own property, i.e. building their own teepee?

I’m not sure I understand what preference has to do with the truth value of equating “a genuinely free society” with a “little...state” and a “little...taxation”. A genuinely free society is one with no socially accepted institutions of coercion; state, religious, or otherwise. To include the words “little to” was not only unnecessary but philosophically inaccurate. I’m curious why they were included.

A genuinely free society could have a little state and a little taxation?

I operate on the possibility that bitcoin could replace a major portion of the market now occupied by fiat currencies. If that happens one coin could be worth hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars. A small investment could pay off big time. Put what you can afford to lose into it; the risk/reward is too lucrative to not invest. My outlook - Bitcoin is more than money, it replaces the need for money. We use money as the good we can trade for all other goods, a medium with which we track the value of all other goods and services. Money is a representation of the value we provide to the world. It is a ticket you receive from someone saying that you have provided some value, and at the time of your choosing you can cash in this ticket for the current equivalent value of what you have provided. Bitcoin does this in a way where the value of the medium of exchange is decentralized, it is immune to the manipulations of governments and banksters. The ledger of what value each person has contributed to society is public and unalterable. It has all the desired characteristics of an ideal medium of exchange - except the acceptability, which it is acquiring at a steady pace. If we think of money as the answer to the coincidence of wants, as a good that allows you to store value in a medium other than the one you produce, as a public ledger of account on your deposits and withdrawals into and out of society, then the blockchain is the single greatest medium of exchange ever developed.

Sorry, we’re the millers. Pretty good relative to what passes for comedy these days.

Here's the YouTube video in case you had trouble accessing it still.

Reminds me of Meet the Millers lol. Have you seen it?

So bees are wrong? OP- Is having sex immoral? Is filming immoral? Is watching sex immoral? Would you use force to prevent any of these things? If not why would you use force to prevent the combination of these things. Morality concerns itself with the use of force, otherwise it is just your opinion of which you can do little about. You say it’s bad, someone else says it’s not. Now what? You must be willing to use force to inflict your morality so you better be sure you are actually right. We’ve seen where incorrect moral ideologies lead - mountains of bodies. There’s nothing wrong with ostracizing people. If you don’t like what they are doing then don’t associate with them, don’t encourage their behavior, try to convince others of your reasons. What you can’t do is initiate force to stop them from doing what you don’t like, if you have that right then everyone has that right and you can see how quickly that will lead to violence.

If a society creates an institution where the initiation of force is justified, then the people who will benefit the most from the initiation of force will have the largest incentive to infiltrate that institution. Every government will eventually "fail" at the stated goal of serving the people while succeeding at benefiting power mongers who cannot survive through voluntary association.

I didn’t see this in the podcast stream.

Anyone “benefitting” from taxation is not actually being taxed. If I steal $100 from Ted and give you $50 (in fiat or services), then “tax” you $5, I have really just given you $45. You’ve paid nothing. I’ve just created the illusion that you have by giving to you more than I ultimately intend. So anyone who “prefers” to be taxed is either so propagandized they don’t realize they are being fleeced to sustain a massive, parasitical bureaucracy, or they aren’t actually “paying” any taxes. Someone else is “paying” their taxes for them through the force of state. Irrespective, it doesn’t matter because the threat of force is behind the entire system which makes it theft.

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner

So you are accosted by 3 men with guns in an alley. They demand the contents of your wallet or they will kill you. Unless you're Jason Bourne you will likely not survive an attempt at self defense. Any sane person will pay the muggers off and be grateful to be alive in the moments afterward. The point is that just because you decide that your chances for survival are greater if you pay them off does not mean that their actions are not immoral. It does not imply consent. It is quite clear that in the face of certain overwhelming force, what you are paying for is your life. You are not paying for civilization, you are paying off muggers so you may continue to live. If what they have to offer is worth any positive value to you than your life does not need to be added to tip the scales in their favor. How has the government been at defending our rights so far? They are fewer every election cycle. What could having rights possibly mean if you are not allowed to retain the product of your labor? Which group would you prefer defend your rights? Group A, who receives your money voluntarily based on the quality of the service they provide, or Group B, who can take your money regardless of the quality of the service they provide and will undoubtedly use that money to ensure your next payment?

Shred this https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2017/09/15/top-10-reasons-public-schools-are-the-best-choice-for-children-parents-communities/

There are places where there are no taxes, but that does not mean you would be free from violence or coercion. There are some places that are unclaimed, but they are unclaimed for a reason, they cannot sustain human life in isolation. Freedom from coercion and violence. Freedom from the initiation of force and the threat thereof. Most freedom in what sense? Some countries are more economically free, some are more free socially, some have greater opportunity for quality of life despite being less free in either of the other two areas. How do I measure that? Wasting time doing that is time not spent trying to convince the world that freedom is how we survive as a species and coercion holds us back. Violence benefits the few at the cost of the many. It holds the entire human race back. I want to free the world, not just myself. I said “the property”, as in the property in question, was never justly acquired. Property is justly acquired through creation and voluntary trade. Otherwise I declare myself king of all the land in the world and since you’re on my land I conscript you to fight for me to take back what is justly mine. If you refuse I name you traitor and sentence you to death. No matter what I say, I’m just a murderer. Whether or not I fool a substantial number of other people to agree with me prior to killing you does not change that fact. I signed no contract. The social or civic contract is a fabrication designed to disguise the knavery of power seekers. I cannot draw up a contract that binds you without your consent, getting a billion people to agree that I can does not change that fact. You’re right, it’s not complicated. A contract is a voluntary agreement of terms between two parties. The social contract is anything but.