The New Economy

[Selene]

Charlie Shrem, who ran bitcoin (BTC) exchange BitInstant, has been arrested. It looks like he’s one of the bonus busts from the feds’ shutdown of the Silk Road website.

He’s charged, in effect, with not spying enthusiastically enough for the government. Formally, of course, he’s charged under money-laundering laws—which is a nice way to imply he was doing something nasty. Then again, BTC offers competition with the State’s currency, and if there’s one thing the State can’t abide, it’s competition.

So maybe it makes sense they’d be grandstanding: "Truly innovative business models don't need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking,” said Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, according to The Los Angeles Times.

But Bharara and company aren’t just concerned with delivering lectures. "We will aggressively pursue those who would co-opt new forms of currency for illicit purposes." So really, they’re taking care of this fledgling young currency until it grows up big and strong and can stand on its own two feet.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/bitcoin-exec-arrested#ixzz2rnp9alft

You do not think that this move by the Manhattan DA is going to affect their value?

[moralist]

Charlie Shrem, who ran bitcoin (BTC) exchange BitInstant, has been arrested. It looks like he’s one of the bonus busts from the feds’ shutdown of the Silk Road website.

He’s charged, in effect, with not spying enthusiastically enough for the government. Formally, of course, he’s charged under money-laundering laws—which is a nice way to imply he was doing something nasty. Then again, BTC offers competition with the State’s currency, and if there’s one thing the State can’t abide, it’s competition.

So maybe it makes sense they’d be grandstanding: "Truly innovative business models don't need to resort to old-fashioned law-breaking,” said Preet Bharara, the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, according to The Los Angeles Times.

But Bharara and company aren’t just concerned with delivering lectures. "We will aggressively pursue those who would co-opt new forms of currency for illicit purposes." So really, they’re taking care of this fledgling young currency until it grows up big and strong and can stand on its own two feet.

Read more: http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/bitcoin-exec-arrested#ixzz2rnp9alft

You do not think that this move by the Manhattan DA is going to affect their value?

If it does, it won't likely effect it for long. The pyramid religion is still in its exponential growth phase and the ample supply of available greedy suckers eager to jump on the something for nothing bandwagon isn't close to becoming exhausted...

...yet.

"The return to reality from fantasy is inexorable."

--Greg

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Well the way I see it is bitcoins are now a currency. A laissez-faire one at that solely controlled by perceived market value and the participants confidence in that currencies ability to be used as it is intended. Already more and more businesses are willing to accept it. Now if I were to travel to the USA and try to pay for goods or services in CDN dollars not one single store would accept it. I would have to go to a currency exchange, pay 12% conversion fee and then go back to the store. If I already owned bitcoins that I bought with CDN dollars I could just sell them.

Yes I already know about using ETFs that are held in both TSE and NYSE whereby I can "wash" it over to either market at a very reduced rate exchange and have done so "Norbert's gambit etc etc".

As a freedom loving person I rather like the Idea of having a currency that is not simply printed at the whim of the US treasurer with his quantitative easing Weimar Republic style printing presses.

Bitcoins in my opinion are simply another option. Interesting that the US government is selling off 28 million worth of them.

I have nothing against anyone using bitcoins, because their own free choice has no effect on my own fiscal condition. I operate completely outside of that system. And as long as you understand the principle which determines bitcoin value... go for it.

I too understand that many hard working people feel as you do Greg. Your work ethic is indeed a virtue. As is Dean's. You cannot see eye to eye on this however just because he believes in this currency does not in any way make him immoral.

That's right, not outright immoral. But definitely the something-for-nothing expectation of others to put their money into the bitcoin pyramid so as to pay for the rising value of his bitcoins with their money. All Ponzis work the same way.

The market will be the final judge of its lasting or short lived value.

Absolutely.

Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve.

Greg

Really??? Franco of Spain died quietly in his own bed

[Francisco Ferrer]

Absolutely.

Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve.

Greg

Really??? Franco of Spain died quietly in his own bed

Not to mention the far more evil and long living Stalin and Mao.

I've heard similar claims on other Objectivist forums about reality always paying back the villain. I suspect this wishful thinking originates in "The Objectivist Ethics" with Rand's assertion that "Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

[Jules Troy]

Yes as I asserted earlier, People rarely get what they deserve.

[moralist]

Absolutely.

Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve.

Greg

Really??? Franco of Spain died quietly in his own bed

Not to mention the far more evil and long living Stalin and Mao.

I've heard similar claims on other Objectivist forums about reality always paying back the villain. I suspect this wishful thinking originates in "The Objectivist Ethics" with Rand's assertion that "Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

[moralist]

Yes as I asserted earlier, People rarely get what they deserve.

Then you can prove whether or not that is true for yourself by your own personal experience.

Do something that's morally wrong and escape getting what you deserve as the consequences of your actions. Lots of luck trying to beat the reality of cause and effect.

Greg

[Selene]

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

This is a beautifully crafted argument that Greg makes, and has been making, since he has "appeared" on OL.

I would highly suggest that folks here invest the intellectual time and read Aristotle's Rhetoric.

Additionally, read his Poetics, as Michael is doing.

[Jules Troy]

I do not dooo things that are morally wrong, and if I did in error I would for my own conscience make amends.

[Ellen Stuttle]

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

This is a beautifully crafted argument that Greg makes, and has been making, since he has "appeared" on OL.

Where's the "argument"? All Greg is crafting is an assertion, with no standard of morally right or wrong provided, and no independent way of saying in advance what consequences are "deserved" for what action.

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

He seems to talk and walk in circles..

[Ellen Stuttle]

He seems to talk and walk in circles..

Thoroughly.

Ellen

[Francisco Ferrer]

I've heard similar claims on other Objectivist forums about reality always paying back the villain. I suspect this wishful thinking originates in "The Objectivist Ethics" with Rand's assertion that "Such looters may achieve their goals for the range of a moment, at the price of destruction: the destruction of their victims and their own. As evidence, I offer you any criminal or any dictatorship.”

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

When I was about 10, a friend entered a movie theatre and held the exit door open so that three of us could enter without paying.

I owed the theatre owner a dollar. The theatre was demolished decades ago. I have no idea where the owner is today or even if he is alive.

Do I now feel guilty for this crime of a half century ago? Yes.

Do I think Stalin and Mao felt guilty for their genocides? Hell, no. By their philosophy, they were key actors in societal development.

There is a term our language has for people who harm others without remorse. Compared to the population as a whole, they are small in number. But they exist and do leave their mark.

Thinking that all evil-doers are dealt some form of comeuppance in this life is just a secular form of the Christian's belief in Divine Judgment.

[moralist]

Do I think Stalin and Mao felt guilty for their genocides? Hell, no. By their philosophy, they were key actors in societal development...

...Thinking that all evil-doers are dealt some form of comeuppance in this life is just a secular form of the Christian's belief in Divine Judgment.

Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remose or guilt. They are the kind of person you become for doing evil. No one escapes that.

Greg

[moralist]

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

This is a beautifully crafted argument that Greg makes, and has been making, since he has "appeared" on OL.

Where's the "argument"? All Greg is crafting is an assertion,

with no standard of morally right or wrong provided,

and no independent way of saying in advance what consequences are "deserved" for what action.

Ellen

Come on, Ellen. You don't know by your own personal experience what's objectively right and wrong?

You certainly should have by now so why would you need me to tell you? Funny, I never took you for being a relativist. Guess I was wrong about that.

The reality of the consequences of our own actions is the perfect teacher which never misses an opportunity to demonstrate a lesson.

And we each choose how we learn... the easy way or the hard way. But no matter which way... we learn. Whether it's a gentle tap on the shoulder, or a two by four over the head.

There's a specific reason for taking this topic to the personal level. It is because people are always claiming that someone else is getting away with doing evil without any consequences. So that naturally begs the question:

Are YOU getting away with doing evil?

Since each of us is the best expert on their own life, that is always the best place to begin the inquiry.

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Mor

Do I think Stalin and Mao felt guilty for their genocides? Hell, no. By their philosophy, they were key actors in societal development...


...Thinking that all evil-doers are dealt some form of comeuppance in this life is just a secular form of the Christian's belief in Divine Judgment.

Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remose or guilt. They are the kind of person you become for doing evil. No one escapes that.


Greg

You wrote, "Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve."

I then pointed out two mass murderers who did not get what they deserved. Stalin and Mao lived long lives and were never punished for their crimes.

So if Stalin and Mao were never brought to justice, how did they get what they deserved?

The consequences, you now say, "are the kind of person you become for doing evil." So, the communist dictators committed democide, and their just deserts were to become the kind of person who commits genocide?

What an insight! A man who mows his lawn becomes the kind of person who mows his lawn.

[moralist]

Mor

Do I think Stalin and Mao felt guilty for their genocides? Hell, no. By their philosophy, they were key actors in societal development...

...Thinking that all evil-doers are dealt some form of comeuppance in this life is just a secular form of the Christian's belief in Divine Judgment.

Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remose or guilt. They are the kind of person you become for doing evil. No one escapes that.

Greg

You wrote, "Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve."

I then pointed out two mass murderers who did not get what they deserved. Stalin and Mao lived long lives and were never punished for their crimes.

So if Stalin and Mao were never brought to justice, how did they get what they deserved?

This is a common claim that someone else got away with doing evil without any consequences. So again I ask you:

Do you get away with doing evil without any consequences?

It's a simple question worth considering.

And just a side note... Stalin and Mao did not singlehandedly do all of that evil. It took tens of millions of evil people to do it, because it's evil people who create evil leaders in their own rotten image. By fixating only on the one person at the top, the real cause is ignored.

Greg

[Jonathan]

You wrote, "Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve."

I then pointed out two mass murderers who did not get what they deserved. Stalin and Mao lived long lives and were never punished for their crimes.

So if Stalin and Mao were never brought to justice, how did they get what they deserved?

The consequences, you now say, "are the kind of person you become for doing evil." So, the communist dictators committed democide, and their just deserts were to become the kind of person who commits genocide?

What an insight! A man who mows his lawn becomes the kind of person who mows his lawn.

It just occurred to me who Greg is. He's The Sphinx from Mystery Men.

The Sphinx:

"To learn my teachings, I must first teach you how to learn."

"He who questions training only trains himself at asking questions."

"Learn to hide your strikes from your opponent and you'll more easily strike his hide."

"When you doubt your powers, you give power to your doubts."

-----

Mr. Furious: Okay, am I the only one who finds these sayings just a little bit formulaic? "If you want to push something down, you have to pull it up. If you want to go left, you have to go right." It's...

The Sphinx: Your temper is very quick, my friend. But until you learn to master your rage...

Mr. Furious: ...your rage will become your master? That's what you were going to say. Right? Right?

The Sphinx: Not necessarily.

[PDS]

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

This is a beautifully crafted argument that Greg makes, and has been making, since he has "appeared" on OL.

I would highly suggest that folks here invest the intellectual time and read Aristotle's Rhetoric.

Additionally, read his Poetics, as Michael is doing.

I've got to call you out on this, Adam.

No, this really isn't a "beautifully crafted" argument at all. It's really just repetitive bullshit.

Greg can keep reformulating his "just desserts" argument all he wants, but those just desserts taste and smell the same every time, i.e., like bullshit. Let me explain:

I asked Greg once if a young child sitting on a garbage heap in Haiti got what he "deserved." He told me he had no idea, that I would have to go ask the kid what choices his parents had made, more or less. This was after going round and round about the possibility that perhaps our young Haitian wasn't quite 100% responsible for his situation. This is the depth of Greg's analysis. I once asked Greg which three books he had recently read to support his theological positions, which, by the way, are inherent in his overall argument, and he rattled off Genesis, Issiah, and Revelation. Okay, Greg. I once asked Greg if his concept of "just desserts" fit within Augustine's conception of Original Sin, and--after much Fred Astaire tap-dancing--he said, well, nothing much. I don't think Greg has read much Augustine. I also once asked Greg how it is he is able to read the minds of his potential and actual business associates--whom he claims, remarkably, to have 100% value agreement with--and he said something to the effect of "I look them in the eyes." Gee, thanks, Greg. I'll make sure to tell my friends who play professional poker that important tip!

The paragraph above is a straightforward use, among other things, of the rhetorical device called conduplicatio. Greg has no idea what this is, and he's not about to read Aristotle or anybody else to find out. Don't give him that much credit.

I can put up with a lot of gibberish from Greg on this forum--but calling his "argument" something that is "beautifully crafted" is just a bit too much.

[Francisco Ferrer]

You wrote, "Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve."

I then pointed out two mass murderers who did not get what they deserved. Stalin and Mao lived long lives and were never punished for their crimes.

So if Stalin and Mao were never brought to justice, how did they get what they deserved?

This is a common claim that someone else got away with doing evil without any consequences. So again I ask you:

Do you get away with doing evil without any consequences?

It's a simple question worth considering.

Greg

I previously said that I felt guilt for entering the movie theatre without paying. Thus, psychologically, I did not get away with it.

But your response was to say, "Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remose or guilt. They are the kind of person you become for doing evil. No one escapes that."

Therefore, if I understand you, by illicitly entering the theatre without a ticket I became the kind of person who would illicitly enter a theatre without a ticket.

I have absolutely no idea how that represents a negative consequence--or even if you think that it is a negative consequence.

And just a side note... Stalin and Mao did not singlehandedly do all of that evil. It took tens of millions of evil people to do it, because it's evil people who create evil leaders in their own rotten image. By fixating only on the one person at the top, the real cause is ignored.

Yes, and some of them died quite painfully--and some of them enjoyed the finest luxuries of the land and died peacefully.

[Jules Troy]

Gasp! Is Greg an unsophisticated Sophist?!

[moralist]

There is a very simple way to prove for yourself that you harvest what you plant. Simply do something that is morally wrong and see if you can escape getting the consequences you deserve.

To this date I never have and neither can you. But there's no need to take my word on this when you can find out for yourself. So let me know how it turns out.

Greg

This is a beautifully crafted argument that Greg makes, and has been making, since he has "appeared" on OL.

I would highly suggest that folks here invest the intellectual time and read Aristotle's Rhetoric.

Additionally, read his Poetics, as Michael is doing.

I've got to call you out on this, Adam.

No, this really isn't a "beautifully crafted" argument at all. It's really just repetitive bullshit.

...and yet you repeat your Haitian garbage heap tirade.

The same question can also be asked of you, because you are the one who knows best how your own life has turned out:

Can you do evil without getting what you deserve as the consequences of your actions?

Greg

[moralist]

You wrote, "Reality trumps fantasy every time... and everyone gets exactly what they deserve."

I then pointed out two mass murderers who did not get what they deserved. Stalin and Mao lived long lives and were never punished for their crimes.

So if Stalin and Mao were never brought to justice, how did they get what they deserved?

This is a common claim that someone else got away with doing evil without any consequences. So again I ask you:

Do you get away with doing evil without any consequences?

It's a simple question worth considering.

Greg

I previously said that I felt guilt for entering the movie theatre without paying. Thus, psychologically, I did not get away with it.

But your response was to say, "Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remose or guilt. They are the kind of person you become for doing evil. No one escapes that."

Therefore, if I understand you, by illicitly entering the theatre without a ticket I became the kind of person who would illicitly enter a theatre without a ticket.

No. You became the kind of person who expects to get something for nothing. And today, that is something of which you can be proud.

And just a side note... Stalin and Mao did not singlehandedly do all of that evil. It took tens of millions of evil people to do it, because it's evil people who create evil leaders in their own rotten image. By fixating only on the one person at the top, the real cause is ignored.

Yes, and some of them died quite painfully--and some of them enjoyed the finest luxuries of the land and died peacefully.

I am contending that evil people have robbed themselves of any semblance of peace. Now you are free to disagree with this. Just take note that my original question still remains unanswered:

Can you do evil without getting what you deserve as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

Yes, and some of them died quite painfully--and some of them enjoyed the finest luxuries of the land and died peacefully.

I am contending that evil people have robbed themselves of any semblance of peace. Now you are free to disagree with this. Just take note that my original question still remains unanswered:

Can you do evil without getting what you deserve as the consequences of your own actions?

Greg

Previously you wrote, "Consequences have absolutely nothing to do with feelings of remo[r]se or guilt."

Now you say, "Evil people have robbed themselves of any semblance of peace."

We'll put aside the supposed distinction between remorse ("moral anguish arising from repentance for past misdeeds") and lack of peace.

What's missing from your argument is any recognition of the existence of people for whom the rights, feelings, well being and lives of others are of no concern.

Lack of empathy has long been recognized by professionals as a factor in serial murderers, rapists and child molesters. For example,

"In the literature of psychiatry as well as that of criminology, lack of empathy--along with a manipulative and calculating style, an absence of remorse, and impulsiveness--is frequently regarded as a defining characteristic of the psychopathic or antisocial personality disorder." James Alan Fox and Jack Levin, Extreme Killing: Understanding Serial and Mass Murder. Sage Publications, Second Edition, 2011.

Furthermore, among mass murderers with ideological ends, the extinction of thousands or millions of lives is regarded not as regrettable but as a necessary means to a higher purpose.

Stalin, whose artificially created famines alone killed 2.2 million to 5 million people, said, "The idea of a concentration camp is excellent," and "One of Ivan the Terrible's mistakes was to overlook the five great feudal families. If he had annihilated those five families, there would definitely have been no Time of Troubles."

Why is there any reason to believe that Stalin was not at peace with himself?

[deanwins]

Blah blah blah... isn't this thread about how bitcoin is going to change the world... not about spaghetti monster ethics?