Remember Bitcoin?
-
@lizardfoot said:
Bitcoin is only designed to be a currency; a form of cash that is not backed by any bank or nation and does not rely on the economic stability of any bank or nation.
So when "economic stability of any bank" (MtGOX) turns out not great, Bitcoin is not affected at all?
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Most[citation needed] European countries are divided into regions/parishes/state-like constructs.
Yes, but they're not politically independent in the way US States are. Hell, four of the "States" aren't even States-- they're Commonwealths. And Puerto Rico is a... whatever the hell Puerto Rico is. (Soon to become a State, hopefully.)
@Buttembly Coder said:
Also, most people who have day-to-day "interactions" with a government entity are criminals.
Sorry I didn't realized you lived outside of society in a hut in the middle of the forest. I use my Internet (regulated by the State), my phone (actually mostly Federal, so that counts against me), I drive to work (roads/gas regulated by State) or ride the bus (State, actually County or City.) etc. That's all before 9:00 AM.
-
@blakeyrat said:
And Puerto Rico is a... whatever the hell Puerto Rico is.
PR is a Commonwealth as well.
@blakeyrat said:(Soon to become a State, hopefully.)
A fair number of Puerto Ricans would disagree with you on that. It's a fairly thorny issue there. Quite a few of them actually want independence.
And finally, don't forget about the USVI and Guam! (Both territories). Fun fact - residents of the USVI (not sure about Guam) are American citizens, but can't vote for president and only have a delegate to Congress (who also can't vote).
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
Most[citation needed] European countries are divided into regions/parishes/state-like constructs.
Yes, but they're not politically independent in the way US States are. Hell, four of the "States" aren't even States-- they're Commonwealths. And Puerto Rico is a... whatever the hell Puerto Rico is. (Soon to become a State, hopefully.)
I suppose only a True Scotsman would be able to explain how you're wrong, or more accurately, that the point you're trying to make is completely meaningless. Any geographic region of sufficient size [spurious - discuss] will have differences in subregions. Political boundaries help to enforce those. Also, roads are mostly funded by the federal government, and administered indirectly through improvement programs, initiatives, &c[citation needed]. I'll skip the part where you failed to recognize a joke - can't help you with that problem.[but they do make a pill for that now]
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I suppose only a True Scotsman would be able to explain how you're wrong, or more accurately, that the point you're trying to make is completely meaningless.
Except it's not. If you're going to draw a diagram, the US Federal Government is more like the EU than anything else in Europe. And Washington State is like, for example, France. Except better-looking. But that diagram is also hugely flawed, because the "reach" of the EU and of the US Federal Government is vastly different.
@Buttembly Coder said:
Any geographic region of sufficient size [spurious - discuss] will have differences in subregions.
Nobody's debating that. The point is, in the US those subregions are politically independent. In Europe, they are not.
@Buttembly Coder said:
Also, roads are mostly funded by the federal government,
In the US? No. Only the Interstate Highway program has any Federal funding at all, and even there all the actual construction and most of the planning is done by the States and not the Feds. Plus there was a huge rebellion a few years ago, where the Feds overreached by trying to enforce a 55 MPH speed limit across the entire country, making that a condition of receiving highway funding and the States saying, "fuck that noise, can you imagine driving across Utah at only 55 MPH???".
-
@mikeTheLiar said:
A fair number of Puerto Ricans would disagree with you on that. It's a fairly thorny issue there. Quite a few of them actually want independence.
Last polling suggested the majority supported Statehood.
Personally, I'm fine with Puerto Rico remaining as they are, but then we get flak from the UN's "anti-colonialization" program bullshit. Then again, I'd also like to see a 51-star flag in my lifetime and Puerto Rico is by far the best prospect there.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Hell, four of the "States" aren't even States-- they're Commonwealths.
That doesn't make them not states. It's just a name. Some of the states call themselves Republics (e.g., Republic of California), but that doesn't make them not states, either.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
I suppose only a True Scotsman would be able to explain how you're wrong, or more accurately, that the point you're trying to make is completely meaningless.
Except it's not. If you're going to draw a diagram, the US Federal Government is more like the EU than anything else in Europe. And Washington State is like, for example, France. Except better-looking. But that diagram is also hugely flawed, because the "reach" of the EU and of the US Federal Government is vastly different.I think that analogy probably made sense 200 years ago, but it's not so fitting any more. The sovereignty of the states has been leaking away for some time and in many ways. The UK and England, Scotland et.al. are probably a better analogy.
-
@blakeyrat said:
The point is, in the US those subregions are politically independent. In Europe, they are not.
IMHO this underlies a lot of issues in the US. People don't know whether they want to belong to a country or a state. If you want to be an independent state then be one. But if you want to belong to a country then you have to suck it up and accept that it contains more than just your state, and that there is something above you. Trying to have it both ways leads down the path to crazy town.
-
@blakeyrat said:
In the US? No. Only the Interstate Highway program has any Federal funding at all, and even there all the actual construction and most of the planning is done by the States and not the Feds. Plus there was a huge rebellion a few years ago, where the Feds overreached by trying to enforce a 55 MPH speed limit across the entire country, making that a condition of receiving highway funding and the States saying, "fuck that noise, can you imagine driving across Utah at only 55 MPH???".
Look up STIP, Federal Transit Funding, Federal Transportation Enhancement, or any of the other dozens[citation needed] of Federal funding programs for roads and transit. Most of the money to build or maintain roads is fungible, coming from a slush fund, and a fair amount comes from the feds, even for state-maintained roads, or locally-maintained ones (although that tends to be even more convoluted, with the state DOT having a work agreement with the LPA, and funneling federal money in through a federal improvement program.) Don't get me started on CTC-style funding.
Now, for states like NY, the majority comes from the state, but for states like, say Mississippi, the money is mostly federal.[citation needed]
In SC, about 2/3 of the state's money is federal.
None of this really matters, but I just felt like pointing it out.
-
@boomzilla said:
@blakeyrat said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
I suppose only a True Scotsman would be able to explain how you're wrong, or more accurately, that the point you're trying to make is completely meaningless.
Except it's not. If you're going to draw a diagram, the US Federal Government is more like the EU than anything else in Europe. And Washington State is like, for example, France. Except better-looking. But that diagram is also hugely flawed, because the "reach" of the EU and of the US Federal Government is vastly different.I think that analogy probably made sense 200 years ago, but it's not so fitting any more. The sovereignty of the states has been leaking away for some time and in many ways. The UK and England, Scotland et.al. are probably a better analogy.
Shh, you'll confuse Blakey, he thinks "UK", "England", and "Great Britain" are interchangeable.
-
@OzPeter said:
@blakeyrat said:
The point is, in the US those subregions are politically independent. In Europe, they are not.
IMHO this underlies a lot of issues in the US. People don't know whether they want to belong to a country or a state. If you want to be an independent state then be one. But if you want to belong to a country then you have to suck it up and accept that it contains more than just your state, and that there is something above you. Trying to have it both ways leads down the path to crazy town.WTF. This is possibly the worst "argument" against federalism ever. Do you also think that a city shouldn't have a government? Should the national government run everything at every level? The crazy town part is where the Federal government has turned into a national government and goes with a top down, one size fits all solution that ends up not working for anyone.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
@boomzilla said:
"British Isles." Wait, shit, what about the BVI?@blakeyrat said:
@Buttembly Coder said:
I suppose only a True Scotsman would be able to explain how you're wrong, or more accurately, that the point you're trying to make is completely meaningless.
Except it's not. If you're going to draw a diagram, the US Federal Government is more like the EU than anything else in Europe. And Washington State is like, for example, France. Except better-looking. But that diagram is also hugely flawed, because the "reach" of the EU and of the US Federal Government is vastly different.I think that analogy probably made sense 200 years ago, but it's not so fitting any more. The sovereignty of the states has been leaking away for some time and in many ways. The UK and England, Scotland et.al. are probably a better analogy.
Shh, you'll confuse Blakey, he thinks "UK", "England", and "Great Britain" are interchangeable.
-
I remember reading also that Hackers of some form now have access to the Exchange's Source code and more importantly database, which includes the bank account info (routing/account numbers) as well as things like passport scans that are used for verifying accounts.
Now, my first thought, is why people who by and large don't trust governments or banks with money, have decided that giving their personal information to a Japanese company which is still named after it's original purpose of providing a way to exchange trading cards is a good idea... Then act surprised when everybody get's tapped out.
-
@BC_Programmer said:
I remember reading also that Hackers of some form now have access to the Exchange's Source code and more importantly database, which includes the bank account info (routing/account numbers) as well as things like passport scans that are used for verifying accounts.
Now, my first thought, is why people who by and large don't trust governments or banks with money, have decided that giving their personal information to a Japanese company which is still named after it's original purpose of providing a way to exchange trading cards is a good idea... Then act surprised when everybody get's tapped out.
Not every bitcoin, er, user? owner? participant? is an idealist strawman. I assume a large portion are just people who see it as "less evil than Paypal."
-
@Lorne Kates said:
Why do people constantly comapre the US (a single country made up of states) to a State (a single State unit)?
I've observed that people in Europe tend to underestimate how different the states of the US are from each other, and that people in the US tend to underestimate how different the member states of the EU are from each other. Even with people who really ought to know better. I guess people miss important stuff when looking from a long way away.The view from 50,000 feet: everything looks like ants.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Not every bitcoin, er, user? owner? participant? is an idealist strawman. I assume a large portion are just people who see it as "less evil than Paypal."
Those are what is known in the industry as "suckers."
Look, I get the desire to have a better method of online payments that isn't tied to Paypal's centralized account system. What's not so great is tying that design to a wildly fluctuating "crypto-currency" that's also designed to be hard to track who owns what. The two are fundamentally incompatible, especially since the ideal online payment would be (a) ultra stable, and (b) be instantly identifiable as to who owns whats. Why? So that you have a system of currency that is hard to steal/lose and won't lose value from one purchase to the next.
And anyone who tries to use bitcoin to do that is an idiot who does not understand how money works.
-
@blakeyrat said:
Personally, I'm fine with Puerto Rico remaining as they are, but then we get flak from the UN's "anti-colonialization" program bullshit. Then again, I'd also like to see a 51-star flag in my lifetime and Puerto Rico is by far the best prospect there.
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people. It is, ironically, the same reason it took so long for Texas to get admitted to the Union, just from a slightly different perspective. Back then it was worries about the effect of another slave holding state on the cultural/political landscape. Now, it's worries about the effect of a heavily hispanic state on the cultural/political landscape.
It's always boils down to the Republicans cockblocking any change in voting demographics.
-
@Snooder said:
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people.
RAAAAACISTS! OTOH, we already have enough financial basket case states. Do we really need one more?
@Snooder said:
It's always boils down to the Republicans cockblocking any change in voting demographics.
Hey, it's the Democrats who want to keep aborting black babies.
-
@Snooder said:
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people.
Oh fuck off.
-
@Snooder said:
It's always boils down to the Republicans cockblocking any change in voting demographics.
And if it's not Europe vs. America, it's something about the evil Republicans/Tea Party/Christians/Jews/Fox News/Paula Deen/MorbiusWilters. Give it a rest.
-
@Snooder said:
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people.
Again, there's a not insignificant number of Puerto Ricans who actually want independence from the US. Or at least there were last time I paid attention, which admittedly was about 10 years ago.
-
@El_Heffe said:
And so it continues . . .
On March 2nd 2014 Flexcoin was attacked and robbed of all coins in the hot wallet. The attacker made off with 896 BTC (about $615,000 at current price)
As Flexcoin does not have the resources, assets, or otherwise to come back from this loss, we are closing our doors immediately.
"Flexcoin solves nearly every problem that exists with the Bitcoin currency today."
Every problem except having all your money stolen.
-
@Dogsworth said:
@Snooder said:
It's always boils down to the Republicans cockblocking any change in voting demographics.
And if it's not Europe vs. America, it's something about the evil Republicans/Tea Party/Christians/Jews/Fox News/Paula Deen/MorbiusWilters. Give it a rest.
It's more a case of "we don't like [current elected official] so we're going to prove they're not good at their job by ruining their job". It works for democrats as well, such as the case in Wisconsin with unions a while back.
Politicians are basically paid to be douchebags.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
I've never heard of a state-bound serf
California, dude.
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Shh, you'll confuse Blakey, he thinks "UK", "England", and "Great Britain" are interchangeable.
If the referendum in September goes a certain way, and things carry on that way, they will be interchangeable.
-
Re: BitCoins versus Gold
Funny spectrum. At one extreme you have BitCoins, flakey high-tech this-minute psuedo-money. At the other extreme we have gold; solid low-tech milleniia-old money. Dr. Who doesn't have a computer full of BitCoins, he's got a back room full of gold that can buy a hamburger anywhere anytime.
-
@PJH said:
@El_Heffe said:
However, the argument of "the law doesn't specifically prohibit doing [this] in [that] situation" has been used succesfully many times and has allowed people to get away with things that are morally or ethically wrong.
Relevant. Among the more serious stuff:The jocular saying is that, in England, "everything which is not forbidden is allowed", while, in Germany, the opposite applies, so "everything which is not allowed is forbidden". This may be extended to France — "everything is allowed even if it is forbidden" — and Russia where "everything is forbidden, even that which is expressly allowed". While in North Korea it is said that "everything that is not forbidden is compulsory"
I'm not sure where they got this particular idiocy from but in Germany we definitely don't have this kind of mindset. Nulla poenam sine lege applies even here. Wikipedia is definitely not the best source for that kind of shit.
You'll note that they were unable to provide any sources - even though, according to their own statement, "[...]In discussion amongst German scholars of German Law an argument [can] often [be] found[...]". Well, if it can be found often, it shouldn't be too hard to source an example, right?
And I just looked up the term for the "example" they provided: The word "Nebenbesitz" they're referencing doesn't even mean what they're stating that it means. It's a law term concerning who owns stuff, not related to any rights whatsoever.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@fire2k said:
America needs more regulation starting with harder limits on the amount of rat feces your cereal can legally contain.
Considering half of Europe was eating horse meat and nobody noticed for literally years, I'm thinking our food safety agency is doing a pretty good job, comparatively.
Yeah, they probably just look away so that they can't find any misconduct.
It's like unit testing. If you have no tests, they can't fail.
No the horse meat thing was ridicouls. Who cares? It's nto liek it was dangerous, rotten or in any other way bad exepct beign misslabeled. Rat feces on the other hand...
-
@beginner_ said:
No the horse meat thing was ridicouls. Who cares? It's nto liek it was dangerous, rotten or in any other way bad exepct beign misslabeled. Rat feces on the other hand...
horses generally get medicine that is banned for food animals by the FDA (or similar)
-
@ratchet freak said:
@beginner_ said:
No the horse meat thing was ridicouls. Who cares? It's nto liek it was dangerous, rotten or in any other way bad exepct beign misslabeled. Rat feces on the other hand...
horses generally get medicine that is banned for food animals by the FDA (or similar)
Were the horses used for meat given those medicines? I know that horse meat is a thing in France. Are those treated similar to cattle or pigs? Did anyone figure out where the horses were coming from?
-
@boomzilla said:
Were the horses used for meat given those medicines?
There were two problems. One was that it wasn't labelled as horse meat in the first place (horse steak is rather nice IIRC) and the other was that there was no traceability in the food chain at all, so nobody knew whether those medicines were present. Everyone then just assumed the worst (and given what journalists did find out about the companies involved, I think that was a sensible thing to do).
-
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Any geographic region of sufficient size [spurious - discuss] will have differences in subregions.
Taking "sufficient size" to mean "sufficient size to have differences in subregions," and taking Earth as an example of a possible size, I find this assertion plausible.
@El_Heffe said:
http://flexcoin.com/103.html
"Flexcoin solves nearly every problem that exists with the Bitcoin currency today."
Every problem except having all your money stolen.In fairness, that is arguably only one problem. For all I know, that's the only one they didn't have licked.
-
"Flexcoin solves nearly every problem that exists with the Bitcoin currency today."
Every problem except having all your money stolen.Where you keep your money determines who can steal from you. Keep it in a bank, and the bank, and the government, can steal from you. Keep it in a pile of dirty laundry, and the washer woman can steal from you. Keep it in your pocket, and a beggar can steal from you.
Keep it on the Internet, and hackers all over the world can steal from you.
-
@boomzilla said:
How does "unregulated" equate to "can't sue?"
I was going to say that in the minds of devout Church of Government members, "unregulated" means that laws against fraud and the like don't apply either, but El_Heffe seems to have made my point for me:
@El_Heffe said:Is it really so hard to understand that "illegal to steal" is completely meaningless without enforcement. And meaningful enforcement is impossible without extensive, complex regulation that covers every possible situation.
So instead I'll get some popcorn and continue reading.
-
@flabdablet said:
The libertarian program relies heavily on the idea that people, if left to their own devices and freed from the nanny state, would just work things out between themselves. Which kind of ignores the to-me obvious fact that the "nanny" state is exactly and precisely the outcome of millions of people collectively having done and continuing to do that very thing.
So how did people survive before the nanny state was invented?
-
@OzPeter said:
If you want to be an independent state then be one.
The last time we tried that a bunch of people got killed.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I was going to say that in the minds of devout Church of Government members, "unregulated" means that laws against fraud and the like don't apply either, but El_Heffe seems to have made my point for me
@El_Heffe said:Is it really so hard to understand that "illegal to steal" is completely meaningless without enforcement. And meaningful enforcement is impossible without extensive, complex regulation that covers every possible situation.
It's as if we don't already have tons of laws about property or unauthorized access / use of computer systems, etc. We couldn't possibly get by with just the mountains of laws and regulations that already apply to the actions without micromanaging every aspect of a thing. ZOMG, what if the perpetrator hates bitcoin. We'll need a hatecrime statute, too.
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
-
@boomzilla said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
I was going to say that in the minds of devout Church of Government members, "unregulated" means that laws against fraud and the like don't apply either, but El_Heffe seems to have made my point for me @El_Heffe said:
Is it really so hard to understand that "illegal to steal" is completely meaningless without enforcement. And meaningful enforcement is impossible without extensive, complex regulation that covers every possible situation.
It's as if we don't already have tons of laws about property or unauthorized access / use of computer systems, etc. We couldn't possibly get by with just the mountains of laws and regulations that already apply to the actions without micromanaging every aspect of a thing. ZOMG, what if the perpetrator hates bitcoin. We'll need a hatecrime statute, too.
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
Right, because unregulated internet-pseudo-money has been there since the beginning of time, which is why the constitution has clear instructions on the regulation of everybodies favourite
drug moneyfreedom currency.And yes, enforcing international laws when a shady japanese internet shack takes all of the money you willingly transferred to them is the easiest thing in the world.
-
@fire2k said:
@boomzilla said:
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
Right, because unregulated internet-pseudo-money has been there since the beginning of time, which is why the constitution has clear instructions on the regulation of everybodies favourite
drug moneyfreedom currency.I can't tell what you think you mean here, since that was exactly the point I made about spoons.
@fire2k said:
And yes, enforcing international laws when a shady japanese internet shack takes all of the money you willingly transferred to them is the easiest thing in the world.
I WANT MY SPOONS BACK
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@flabdablet said:
The libertarian program relies heavily on the idea that people, if left to their own devices and freed from the nanny state, would just work things out between themselves. Which kind of ignores the to-me obvious fact that the "nanny" state is exactly and precisely the outcome of millions of people collectively having done and continuing to do that very thing.
So how did people survive before the nanny state was invented?
They didn't.
Look, I lean libertarian myself, but you can't ignore the central fact of history, which is that governments exist and are created generally by the will of the people in them as a way to keep themselves safe. Any time you have a large group of people, some of whom are weaker than others, you will end up with a system that attempts to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong.
You can argue that the pendulum has swung too far, or that the extent to which a government protects its citizens is too great, or that the inevitable casualties of lessening that protection are justified. But to argue, as many do, that the protection itself is unnecessary is just bullshit.
@Mcoder said:Sorry, but that is, indeed, very difcult for me to understand. How does the MtGox situation differs from any other corporation that was stealed or commited fraud (depending on the actual facts)against their creditors? And what does bitcoin not being regulated (WTF does that mean?) changes anything?
Because in order to prosecute someone for a crime, they have to actually do something illegal. In this case, when prosecuting someone for financial crimes, the illegal thing that they did was to contravene regulations. If you don't have any regulations, then you don't have any illegality, and therefore no prosecution. What the hell do you think people being prosecuted for stock manipulation or securities fraud are prosecuted under? Some mystical ideal of fairness? There are regulations out there for the trading of currencies precisely to prevent this sort of bullshit. And if you have a currency that is supposedly unregulated, then you also forgo any method of redress if things go south as they inevitably do.
-
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people.
RAAAAACISTS! OTOH, we already have enough financial basket case states. Do we really need one more?
A) I was being facetious.B) See http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/04/27/oppose-statehood-for-puerto-rico-hr-2499/ for the sort of thing I'm talking about. Do I think Republicans are racist? No. Do I think politicians with a poor base of support among hispanic voters are concerned about re-election if there are more hispanic voters out there? Of course, that's just good sense.
-
@Snooder said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
@flabdablet said:
The libertarian program relies heavily on the idea that people, if left to their own devices and freed from the nanny state, would just work things out between themselves. Which kind of ignores the to-me obvious fact that the "nanny" state is exactly and precisely the outcome of millions of people collectively having done and continuing to do that very thing.
So how did people survive before the nanny state was invented?
They didn't.
Look, I lean libertarian myself, but you can't ignore the central fact of history, which is that governments exist and are created generally by the will of the people in them as a way to keep themselves safe. Any time you have a large group of people, some of whom are weaker than others, you will end up with a system that attempts to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong.
You can argue that the pendulum has swung too far, or that the extent to which a government protects its citizens is too great, or that the inevitable casualties of lessening that protection are justified. But to argue, as many do, that the protection itself is unnecessary is just bullshit.Yes, you're the voice of moderation here, but go back to flabdablet's statment, and he's basically saying (even if unintentionally) that the pendulum can't swing too far. And I'm not sure who these many who argue that government is unnecessary aren't libertarians.
@Snooder said:
Because in order to prosecute someone for a crime, they have to actually do something illegal. In this case, when prosecuting someone for financial crimes, the illegal thing that they did was to contravene regulations. If you don't have any regulations, then you don't have any illegality, and therefore no prosecution. What the hell do you think people being prosecuted for stock manipulation or securities fraud are prosecuted under? Some mystical ideal of fairness? There are regulations out there for the trading of currencies precisely to prevent this sort of bullshit. And if you have a currency that is supposedly unregulated, then you also forgo any method of redress if things go south as they inevitably do.
So...there are no laws about private property? Unauthorized computer access? The original stupid statement about this subtrhead was about suing, which isn't criminal law and at least in the US, isn't as dependent on statutes as criminal law. There's also the straw man about what people think a crypto currency not backed by a nation state means. What if we were talking about Canadian Tire Money? What if we were talking about cases of soda or cartons of cigarettes or bottles of detergent? Hey, you can't prosecute them or sue them for stealing that stuff because it's not regulated as currency! Haha! Suck on that, SEC!
-
@Snooder said:
@boomzilla said:
@Snooder said:
Let's be honest here, the only reason Puerto Rico isn't a state yet is because it's too full of brown people.
RAAAAACISTS! OTOH, we already have enough financial basket case states. Do we really need one more?
A) I was being facetious.
And I like to make fun of facetious or serious silly racism charges.
@Snooder said:
B) See http://www.nhteapartycoalition.org/tea/2010/04/27/oppose-statehood-for-puerto-rico-hr-2499/ for the sort of thing I'm talking about. Do I think Republicans are racist? No. Do I think politicians with a poor base of support among hispanic voters are concerned about re-election if there are more hispanic voters out there? Of course, that's just good sense.
Sure, and that's the main reason the Democrats want felons and illegal immigrants to vote. Politicians gonna politic. Of course, small states probably have the most to lose, so they're the most likely to campaign against new states. I think the solution to illegal immigration is to just recognize reality and make it official by annexing Mexico.
-
Essentially, calling the *coins "unregulated currency" is just marketing hype. They are commodities. But, even if the item itself isn't regulated (which is already untrue, given the number of countries with sanctions/restrictions on them) that doesn't mean that actions taken involving them are not regulated. Stealing an unregulated chicken is still theft, trading a chicken for drugs is still drug trafficking, telling someone you'll house their chickens, then craigslisting them, is still a breach of contract (dependent on where you both live, I suppose).
-
@Buttembly Coder said:
Stealing an unregulated chicken is still theft, trading a chicken for drugs is still drug trafficking, telling someone you'll house their chickens, then craigslisting them, is still a breach of contract (dependent on where you both live, I suppose).
Stealing an unregulated chicken is theft, but failing to keep records on your unregulated chickens is not a crime; and if one day the coop is empty, it's your word against theirs about how many chickens were there.
-
@Snooder said:
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
The central fact of history is that governments have participated in the depredations and in most cases have at least tried to get a monopoly thereof. But you didn't answer the question I asked. The question you answered is "how did people survive without the state?". 100 years ago we didn't have the alphabet soup of government agencies that we have now, protecting us from ourselves wasn't seen as an issue, and protecting us from each other was left to state and local laws. So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?@flabdablet said:
The libertarian program relies heavily on the idea that people, if left to their own devices and freed from the nanny state, would just work things out between themselves. Which kind of ignores the to-me obvious fact that the "nanny" state is exactly and precisely the outcome of millions of people collectively having done and continuing to do that very thing.
So how did people survive before the nanny state was invented?
They didn't.
Look, I lean libertarian myself, but you can't ignore the central fact of history, which is that governments exist and are created generally by the will of the people in them as a way to keep themselves safe. Any time you have a large group of people, some of whom are weaker than others, you will end up with a system that attempts to protect the weak from the depredations of the strong.
-
@boomzilla said:
@fire2k said:
@boomzilla said:
To hear El_Heffe tell it, since ownership and usage of spoons isn't regulated, how in the world could you enforce it if someone stole your spoon collection? I guess it will remain a mystery until the Undersecretary for Spoons at the Department of Silverware issues a final ruling.
Right, because unregulated internet-pseudo-money has been there since the beginning of time, which is why the constitution has clear instructions on the regulation of everybodies favourite
drug moneyfreedom currency.I can't tell what you think you mean here, since that was exactly the point I made about spoons.
@fire2k said:
And yes, enforcing international laws when a shady japanese internet shack takes all of the money you willingly transferred to them is the easiest thing in the world.
I WANT MY SPOONS BACK
First of all, what is it with you and spoons?
Secondly spoons are what you'd call actual property. It physically exists. If somebody breaks into your American house and steals your spoon collection that would be something that has misc. precendents in history. Now if you shipped all you spoons to Japan in order to let leverage brokers keep them for them in order to trade them on an international spoon market, regulation would be way harder, since you would have to deal with the japanese government (also your metaphor is getting both stupid and kind of racist now).
If all of your spoons had no physical existence, meaning you only had a collection of schematics of spoons a unregulated market put arbitrary values onto, you'd have more problems. For example, the fact that the Japanese Government never had to deal with this kinda shit before. Secondly because the very fact that your spoons are an unregulated currency makes the legality of you trading with it questionable. What about spoon-regulated taxes you didn't pay, both in Japan and America? What about spoon-reserves to combat massive hyperspoon-inflation or spoon-related market crashes?
You can't have your spoon and eat it too. Either you get a unregulated pseudo-legal mess of a spoon-trade and eat shit when spammers scam you, or you submit to actual legal proccedings that undermine the very nature of your spoon-trade.
-
@PedanticCurmudgeon said:
So answer the question I asked: how did people survive without the FDA telling us what to eat and drink, the SEC telling us what stocks are OK to buy, etc.?Once again, they didn't. They died from malnourishment, environmental pollution, child labour, work exploitation, slavekeeping, polio, polio again, rat feces, heroin (sold as medicine, remember?) and a million other things now thankfully prevented by state laws.
