Theodore

Bitcoins have value for several reasons not the least of which is that gold cannot be sent instantly through your computer. Another aspect of its value is the ability to do business anonymously. further silver and gold have NO value just as bitcoins or salt or FRN's etc have NO value. A currencies only value is that you have it and someone else desires it. Currencies are a commdity which are bartered. In fact you might say that the only real definition of a currency is: The most bartered item within a community. There is also more than just a claim. The source code for bitcoins is open source which means that you can go and check it out yourself, if you dont know about it you can learn about it and then check it out. Further there will only ever be a set number of bitcoins in the world. Once that limit is reached that is all there will ever be. My favorit thing about bitcoins however is that my bank is my computer. I am taking my money out of the hands of the banks and the federal government and denying them its use. Finally. Lets not pretend that the FRN is not on the verge of collapse. Yes I have gold, I have silver, but I believe in diversifying. Bitcoins are much easier to use than silver or gold.

Three words Free State Project.

As an anarchist I think this video is good for the most part. It is right when it talks about those people who are not anarchists but use the name of anarchism to overthrow the existing system and install their own. The world has not however had anarchy for thousands of years. I find myself correcting people who say "look at somalia is that what you want? thats anarchy." No somalia is a tribalist country. What I really find interesting is when I bring up the idea of letting us (the anarchists) try our experiment. Let us have a plot of land and then have no government. Worst case scenario is we all kill each other. Rand was right on the idea of competing governments but anarchy does not allow competing governments.

Disband the Military. Can anyone name a one twelve month time frame in which we have not had a major military action. I am of the opinion that governments are not a necessary evil (thomas paine) but instead are only evil. End war, Disband government.

http://www.pyramining.com/account/browse?id=py7g92nz for those that are interested this is one of the best parts of the BTC economy. The BTC has a limit on how many BTC will ever exist. Like gold or silver the BTC must be mined. The total number of BTC and the number of users determines their value, but what is really important is that BTC are so divisible. There is a criticism that because they are not backed by anything they have no real value. This however does not understand the real definition of money. Gold and silver are trusted long existing money, but gold and sliver have no inherit value. Their value is only from the fact that people trust it.

It has been a while since I made a post but I would like to pick up on the bitcoin theme which I already posted on. http://www.weusecoins.com/ Bitcoins (BTC) are making a rapid growth as well as changing the way people do business. Already there are sites out there which allow people to gamble online, buy and sell food, clothing, precious metals, and a number of other things. It is my belief that as the US dollar continues to fall more and more people will turn to the BTC as an alternative currency to collapsing global currencies. Whats more is the total anonymity which the BTC provides for its users. This is going to make it much harder for governments to track people for taxes, and simply outlawing it wont do much good as people are able to transfer their BTC into VISA and other card based services rather easily. Add to that the fact that there exists a BTC stock exchange and other investment institutions and the BTC looks more and more attractive to people. I think though that the last straw will be the coming hyper-inflation which i see occuring within the next five to ten years. As for myself I am heavily invested in BTC as well as silver and gold. What I see as the major advantage to the BTC however is the lack of control. The way it is designed makes it impossible for it to be anything but a free market currency. welcome to the end of governments.

I think it is more a case of pointing out contradictions rather than downright errors. Do you think there exists a better political system than a democracy? Though this is off topic I will answer this question. Yes there are two better systems than democracy, The best system is the republicanism of early America.The next best system to republicanism is Monarchy. Why? Because there is a single neck to cut off when the government becomes overly oppressive. The worst part about democracy is that ALL democratic systems are in practice oligarchies, and the systems are set up in such a way as to allow the rulers to circumvent the democratic process. What is worse still is that these same oligarchs are blameless because they have the "will of the people" behind them. When they do something people don't like they say "we were elected by the will of the majority and therefore carry out the will of that majority." even if they do not represent the majority. Behind the belief that democracy is the best system is the belief that because my gang has more guns than your gang I am right. For this reason I guess you could call me a monarchist-anarchist. I do not believe in the utopia of Anarchy, yet philosophically I agree with them. I support limited monarchy because I like Thomas Paine believe government is a necessary evil, thus we should chain the government as much as possible, by adopting monarchy this means that when the "rulers" step out of line they cant point to someone else and say "I am just carrying out their will." Jeffersonian republicanism is better because it creates so much friction as to stall the gears of government. In practice it prevents both the majority and the minority from imposing their will upon one another. Besides repealing the 17th amendment we should also go back to the original way presidents and vice presidents were elected. That is to say whoever gets the most votes is president, whoever gets the second most votes is vice president. Not only would this make things far more entertaining, but it would have the added benefits of opening up the political field, and making things fare more difficult for the government.

Orthodox Atheism carries over Christian epistemology thinly veiled as science in its world view. This world view shapes the theories of the Orthodox Atheists. I do not believe that thought is supernatural, I do not believe that it is somehow connected with some higher or alternative universe. The crude materialism of the orthodox atheists however leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I say crude because they speak of nature as Christians speak of god. If you can stomach it Paul I recommend "A moral animal" the author explicitly denies thought, and free will. The basic premise of the orthodox Atheists is that matter cannot think, because we are composed of matter we do not think. They ignore that the specific organization of the matter. I am not denying that epigenetics is real or legitimate, it is however stretched beyond its bounds. Because someone may be genetically more prone to substance abuse does not mean that they cannot make a conscious decision against actions which would lead to addiction. Again I point to mindfulness based cognitive therapy especially in the areas of addiction, and OCD. Specifically in the case of OCD mindfulness therapy has proven far more successful than the Pavlovian/Skinnarian alternative. The difference between a dog and myself is massive, we are both made of matter yes. However the specific way in which that matter is organized gives me a much greater range of abilities, especially in the area of thought.

The law has teeth in the form of guns, dungeons, whips, scourges, firing squads and so forth...; Morality is just noble word chopping. We all have idealistic notions of the way things OUGHT to be. We all have an intuitive notion of right and justice. But the law be it good or bad, just or unjust can make people bleed. Morality proposes. The Law disposes. Ba'al Chatzaf Baal this is one of the few times I actually agree with you. At heart i am an Anarchist, I just don't trust the other anarchists so in practice im a minarchist. The difference between my world view and most peoples is that while I believe there are things people ought to do, I do not think I have the right to hold a gun to someones head to make them do what they ought.

I don't think I ever heard of a conspiracy theory from Alex Jones or Jeff Rense or Jesse Ventura that fits that description. They present what they think is evidence; obviously you don't think it's evidence because the evidence is not generally accepted. You mean like the 9/11 truthers claim about steel not melting? The real problem with people like Alex Jones and his ilk is that they de-legitimize actual conspiracies.

You'd be lucky to have a choice. You can't imagine a better person to vote for than a sociopath dressed out in rationality? --Brant Emotions cloud judgement. The real problem is the definitions of sociopath. I do not want judges, police, or politicians with empathy or sympathy, I want judges, politicians, and police who's highest priority is justice, and by justice I mean the archaic definition of the word not the modern touchy feely definition. Eye for an eye, not eye for an apology.

The card and the bitcoin are both fascinating to me. The card creates a local network to exchange information. The purpose with which the bitcoin people are putting it to use is to establish a decentralized alternative currency. The bitcoin is a completely digital currency with an inflation rate about equal to that of gold. Its extremely subversive because for several reasons. One reason is that it is not held in banks, and the currency CAN be used anonymously. When the cards come out in January the people behind the project are going to make a big push to get as many of the cards out as possible to create critical mass, once enough of the cards are in circulation there will be no way for any government to stop it. The main reason I like it is because it takes control of the economy out of the hands of the government.

No one has any opinions?

Www.bitcoincard.org I have recently been considering moving to NH and came across this. Talk about screwing the frn.

What you seem to be saying is that is I get a law passed making abortion illegal than I have right on my side.

What has me curious is your fascination with the law. What I am speaking of is the basis of the law, laws which are arbitrary are immoral.

So slavery is moral if sanctioned by law?

Not quite sure what you mean but i will guess and try to answer. If I misunderstood the question please let me know. Illegal means punishable by "the authorities."In the specific case of incest what is a crime is the incest, not the harm it does (if any) to someone else. I say if any because not all incestuous offspring are defective, I do believe if the child is defective then the parents of the incestuous relationship should be punished for playing Russian roulette with a third parties life.

And for good reason. Human infants born alive are not quite yet persons. Human infants come half-baked from the oven (so to speak). Ba'al Chatzaf So again I ask and please let us have a straight answer, "Is infanticide moral?".

The fetus is alive though not biologically independently, but has no social, only that biological, context. Rights are a human invention conferred by reality--not God--respecting human nature. Rights are the right to right action. Let's take a woman eight months pregnant who wants to abort her unborn child, not for the sake of her health, you can/might posit she has a right to abort the pregnancy but not the right to have an abortion, which would be a positive right. Positive rights are not human rights but government rights which are all violations of rights. Since you are not a woman, I suggest you concern yourself with something else concerning rights for I don't understand the essential nature of your concern--is it rights generally or only "the right to life"? which seems too much of an intellectualization and intellectualizations are tools of tyranny or/and the tool of the woman eight months pregnant who wants an abortion for arbitrary reasons and the doctor tells her to get lost or get psychological help (optional). The law might rightfully say the doctor cannot induce an abortion for arbitrary reasons late in the pregnancy for as the fetus grows in the womb it grows to the point of not needing the womb so it can be removed from the womb and its life preserved which would be an abortion--stopping the pregnancy--which is not also killing. The social context is created thereby. --Brant there are social mores, not just legal ones, but you don't get legally unjustified ones because you feel like it--as for infanticide, the infant has a social context and can have all the rights he can make use of when he makes use of them and when he cries for mommy it's his cry of the right to life and when he's old and senile he still has all the rights he can use, he still has the right to life as long as he can act including the act of breathing--volition does not obtain--and, BTW, does a woman have the right to get her pregnancy aborted three weeks after having the sex that caused it--i.e., a right to get an abortion right then or do you say, "No!"?--the fact that you have this problem or that problem about abortion and rights is not an argument against abortion but an argument for more thinking and education: at least yours, depending on the agenda at hand, which doesn't gainsay I've got the same problem It is false to claim that because I am not a woman it is none of my business. If I see slavery should i keep my mouth shut because I am not a slave? After all many slaves in the south were quite happy as slaves. Yes, yes I know the story that all slaves in the south were treated bad, however the evidence of this does not wash. If I see injustice then I must speak up. If the people I am speaking to are not rational than it is simply enough to say "I disagree" if they are however rational I should try to point out the error in their thinking. Right and wrong is not a matter of social context (read John Galt's speach). Further I do not see how the fact that the child is now an Air breather makes a difference. A day does not a difference make. I don't give a damn what society says is right and wrong. In the words of Lazarus long "Does history record any case in which the majority was right?". The very serious point which goes beyond abortion which is vitally important IS NOT ABORTION. That is the serious problem with this subject. Everyone always assumes that an argument for or against abortion is about abortion. That is wrong. The question is at what point to we recognize a human as having rights. The law currently recognizes both a fetus and a child as property. The law grudgingly recognizes a few rights of the child, rights however are not a matter of law. At what point do we say "You have rights" and "You dont have rights". That is the REAL question here. The fact that the child now breaths air does not appear to me to be a legitimate reason to recognize its rights. How is it rational to say that a parasite (which is what an infant is) does now has a right to life when the only thing that has changed is location. If the mother has a right to kill the infant in the womb she also has the right to kill the infant outside of the womb. (I say here kill not murder). Infants are dumb animals, human animals yes but animals none the less. They are less sentient than a dog. How can it have rights? It cannot act. It cannot sustain itself. Crying does not count as self sustaining action, it is animal reaction to pain. Why does an infant have more rights than a dog? Granting anyone the authority to say "now you don't have rights." and "now you do" has always proven to be a very bad thing. Throughout history the moment you give anyone that power it always expands to greater and greater extents until more and more people have their rights abrogated." Again abortion is a symptom of the larger question. When does a sentient being get rights, and why then. In your case Brant why does the fact that the child now breaths air suddenly grant it the right to live?

Enlightenment or dark age the path to both is the same

Yes but why do they assume christain morals are correct? Especially when all evidence is contrary.

Baal That is not the only place they go wrong but yes I agree. The problem with the orthodox atheist view is they carry evolution too far with many denying thought.

Brant That is where my view comes from. The fetus is human, the fetus is alive according to the scientific definition. The question for me is at what point does the mother not have the right to terminate the child. At what point do you say here it's okay and here it's not. Every argument I have heard is equally valid as an argument for infanticide.

Baal no human child has been born from an artificial womb, this is not because it cannot be done but because any scientist that allows the fetus to come to term would go to jail. This however is irrelevant to the subject at hand. The fact that it exists and the fact that weather or not it works now or not is unimportant. The point being made about the existence of the artificial womb is does it change anything? Theodore, You have presented some impressive challenges here that are hard to refute because you have used the opponents' own arguments as an instrument to weaken their position. Isn't that how you defeat any argument by pointing out the errors inherit to the opponent argument. Notice though that baal does not refute me. Why? In bygone times, the old, the disabled and countless unwanted children were often 'disposed of' by killing them. So something has changed in human psychology over the centuries then? yes human psychology has evolved, that is patternes of thought within groups of individuals has changed. Has these practiced changed because morality has changed or because our thoughts about morality has changed?In comparison I will point out a recent change of moral views which is still on going. Take the both societal and individual view of masturbation 50 years ago, compare that with today's evolving societal view of masturbation. What do I mean by societal psychology? As children we learn the fallacy of democracy ie we assume the majority belief is right. For many this belief carries on into adulthood.