AncapFTW

I toyed with the idea of using megajoules or gigajoules as a currency in a sci-fi story, but because power storage is either inefficient (batteries, water, heat, etc.), or bulky (capacitors), it wouldn't be a valid form of currency at our current tech level. Maybe in the future it could work.

Could the unit of Force, a newton, or pressure, Pascal, be used? Not sure how you'd quantify political pressure or force, though.

My currency idea I made for games could work. The basic idea is this: At some point in the future, several smaller countries and international businesses get together to create the International Trade Bank in international waters. They put money into the bank, and get their self-created cryptocurrency, International Trade Credits, back out. These ITC are used to trade between the nations and businesses that run the bank, and other companies and countries start to use them as well. When people establish colonies on the moon and mars, these colony groups have ITB accounts which they use for getting shipments from Earth. Colonists pay in to their ITB account and are given things on Mars or Luna in exchange. They may also sell things to Earth companies for more ITC. Luna and Mars use LC and MC for local currency, though. This has the advantage of interplanetary currency exchanges being authorizations for transfer, not actual digital currency. The worst that will happen then is that the request doesn't go through and you have to resend it. Fuel could be a good basis for a commodity based currency, but it would likely be exchanged with a bank for bank-issued currency, as it would be hard to use in trades.

So, a parent giving a child a toy and saying it's theirs doesn't constitute them explicitly giving it to the child? A parent saying "I bought this for you" then giving it to them doesn't constitute them explicitly giving it? What if someone else gave it to them, say as a birthday present? Can the parent also confiscate those items on a whim?

Skype? Actually, there have been female urinals brought to market, they were just so unpopular that they never caught on. I don't really get why nudity is such a big deal, especially when you have stalls to hide it.

No, it's just worth more than $60 to me to try and teach someone to think instead of accepting everything an authority figure, IE Stef, says without questioning it. The fact that you are willing to bribe your opposition into shutting up means that you are quite dedicated to the idea, but the fact that you prefer bribery to logical discussion means that you value logic and reason far less. Because of this, I think you need to learn to do one of the things this site is supposed to be about, which is thinking logically. At least you haven't tried to use violence to shut up your opposition, and instead chose bribery. That's a step in the right direction.

Not the same thing. The child's things weren't loaned to them, they were given to them. Besides, usually if there is a washing machine there is will be listed in the rental agreement because it would increase the price of rental.

I think your response is proof that I shouldn't go. You are willing to pay to shut up those that believe differently than you, and call you on those beliefs, or even try to convince you otherwise. Getting you and others to wake up from your self-imposed mental breakdown is more important to me than the money. After all, if I didn't want people to open their eyes and learn to use logic, I wouldn't be complaining in the first place.

Just wandering if he had any interest in learning programming. I recently started looking into trying to make a game. I'd probably release a few simple ones for free or cheap to get the practice and publicity, then try to make a more complex one to put on steam. If you think he's interested, I could send you links to the people on youtube I'm watching to learn. The software I'm using is also free, assuming you don't make at least 100k USD per year making games.

Anyone who is on my property must surrender their possessions to me at any time. Who cares if I gave it to them, that giving is contingent on my every whim. She needs to be brought into line, so I'll do whatever I feel like to force her compliance. Somehow you can to teach your children to be mature by acting immature towards them. It also isn't abuse when they beat them, rape if you have sex with them or let someone else, or murder if they decide they've had enough and add rat poison to their supper. "I was abused by my parents that way, and if I'd said anything about it would have been abused more, so that makes it ok in this situation." And there's nothing violent about stealing your car and ransoming it back to you either. Her previous methods have been ineffective, so it's ok to violate her rights and property to teach her a lesson. The teenager was coerced into compliance eventually, so it's all good. It's an older child that is practically an adult already, so it's not as bad if it happens to them. She now sees the that her parents can do whatever they want to her and understands that she's basically at their mercy, which will keep her in line from now on.

So you don't think you can predict what will be in high demand or short supply in such a situation?

Million, not thousand, but that makes sense. My parentscouldn't understand why I would vote in the primaries. I told them it was basically the same as asking me if I wanted broccoli or boiled cabbage (both foods that make me want to vomit) for supper. neither option is acceptable, so why should I have to choose. If they demand I vote in the election, I'll probably write in "leave position open".

I was thinking about the fallout universe and how some things in it have a high value but have a low value now, like bottled water. Then I started wondering how that would change if there was a different type of apocalypse. So my question is, if you knew that tomorrow the government would collapse and that massive numbers of people who depended on it would be lost without them providing there form of "order", what would you spend your money on? I realize that the type of apocalypse would change the answer, so for the purposes of this discussion, lets say a super-powerful solar flare creates an EMP that burns out every active electronic device on the planet, save the few who could handle a voltage serve, like some transformers, generators, old style electronics like vacuum tubes, and similar. That means no internet, no newer cars (they have a computer in them that's on any time the battery isn't dead), and little electricity, as large power plants couldn't run without computers to control them.

Only to their customers, and if they'd do that, the people would have come to them in the first place. There could be offers to help them get clean, though.

Please stop projecting your own insecurities onto me. This isn't a matter of it being worth more than "all else I could be doing," this is a matter of it having a slightly positive value to me because it is free, and therefore I choose to use it. Maybe you are subsidizing other people's consumption, but you chose to do that when you chose to donate. Simply because you see enough value in something that you choose to donate a large amount to it doesn't mean that others are leaching off of you because they choose not to pay for something that was offered to them for free. Do you pay every street performer you see on the street? By your argument, if anyone gives them money then you are mooching off of them if you don't. Do you pay for wikipedia? Some people donate to it. Do you refuse to use free trials of products or services because that would mooch off them?

If you give people a choice between pizza and salad and don't try to force them one way or the other, some will choose pizza and some will choose salad. The is no syndicate forcing anyone to do anything, but the pizza lovers will naturally form a group, and the salad lovers will naturally form a group. Sure, the issue isn't polarizing, so the groups will intermingle to a high degree, but with different anarchist systems the differences are much more polarizing, so there's less intermingling.

I don't think you understand the concept of freedom. It doesn't required that everything be exactly the same, only that we have the option of being different without violence being used against us. The product/service is offered for free, and if it required payment I wouldn't use it because its numerous problems would result in it having a negative value to me at that point. Just because one person chooses to pay for something doesn't mean that everyone else is using violence against them or oppressing them by paying less or nothing. Because you are willing to pay $5 for an apple doesn't mean that I am doing something wrong by taking an apple that was offered to me for free. That's a very basic concept which anyone with even a basic understanding of the free market should understand.

Care to explain what you mean?

Well, they'll go to Hell if you don't beat a fear of Hell into them, accompanied by indoctrination. And if you're jewish, you need to remove the foreskin too, so... /sarcasm

It was also national pancake day at IHOP, which is obviously not a coincidence and is actually the patriarchy telling women to "get back in the kitchen". /sarcasm

What kind of equality? Equality of outcome or equality of opportunity? Equality of opportunity is essentially just another term for Freedom. Would you pay for a full product when the free trial is full of problems?

Whether they have or haven't is immaterial to the conversation. One can support Freedom and not support Freedomain radio, and one can support Freedomain radio and not support Freedom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u8Jjth81_Q I watched this a few days ago. It's interesting how the same objections people have now were answered by her in 1979.

1) you seem to think that belief based on evidence, reason, and repeatable experimentation is equal to belief based on "that's what I waw told" and tradition. 2) evolution isn't just "based on chance". Chance is only one step. There are multiple other steps which work because of chemistry, physics, and other reasons, and result in a somewhat predictable outcome. Sure the outcome isn't 100% known, but there are tendencies which can account for the variety of life that you see.

Part of growing up is learning to that things are the way they are, and not living in a fantasy world where you believe them because you want them to be true. At that things you can try and change things if you want, but that doesn't work in this case. The most you can do is try to discover IF a deity exists, and so far no one can prove it. At one point, the idea that the government could fix society's problems was a comforting thought to me. Then I started seeing the government for the inept group of actors, liars, and thieves that it is, but thought it was the lesser evil. In time, I came to realize that it was even worse than that, that it was the very evil that was the problem we were trying to cure. I was rejoicing that one tumor was choking out the other tumors, and thought it should be aided in that, but then I saw things for how they were. It was practically a religious experience when I came to see the government for what it was. I felt like a weight was taken off of my mind, like I was no longer bogged down by the mental gymnastics needed to support that evil, and that's the same thing that happened when I realized that a deity wasn't needed to explain anything, and actually made things worse. Maybe you'll have that experience too some day.