Daily Anarchist Forum
July 16, 2019, 02:24:05 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Welcome to the Daily Anarchist Forum!
 
  Home Help Search Members Login Register  
  Show Posts
Pages: [1]
1  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Daily Anarchist future plans on: February 12, 2012, 05:47:53 PM
I've thought of something similar Seth. There will be a huge influx of disenchanted freedom-seekers once Ron Paul ends his political career. This will be an immense opportunity to attract many of them towards anarcho-capitalism.

Paulites could very well become the basis of a strong agorist movement. I was thinking of developping an agorist social network type of community which would be used as a tool to organize agorist means.
2  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Force: threat vs. use on: November 06, 2011, 11:30:18 PM
I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

It is moral to kill anyone who threatens your life.
3  Questions And Challenges / Questions About Anarcho-Capitalism / Re: Force: threat vs. use on: November 06, 2011, 11:29:07 PM
I saw an argument that said it would be immoral to kill someone who broke into your home.  The given reason was that you didn't know if they were there simply to steal from you or intimidate you; therefore, using lethal force would be an unjust escalation. 

My answer to that argument was that it's not incumbent upon the victim to magically know the aggressor's intentions, but I'm looking for a more fundamental argument that will apply to all situations. 

This is easily resolved through contract law. In a free society, everybody would be enticed to have insurance. You would have to agree to certain clauses in your contract with your insurer, such as you forfeiting your rights when you break into someone's home, etc.
4  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Does the NAP cover contract violations? on: September 18, 2011, 07:36:53 PM
Contract violation does not break the NAP. The DRO system would take care of this.
5  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Bitcoin Gets The Smackdown on: June 09, 2011, 04:50:28 PM
This is a very disappointing piece from David Kramer.

So what that the coders arbitrarily decided the upper limit of bitcoins. That's totally irrelevant. And if it is, it will be proven by another crypto-currency competing with Bitcoin in the future who will choose a "better" number of units. What matters is that the money supply is CAPPED, not merely how many units are there in the economy.
6  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Well This Is Totally Depressing on: May 03, 2011, 09:26:30 PM
No WONDER it's been bloody hell getting new users to stick around.

Sadness turning to anger!   Angry

FUCK!!!!!!!!

ubber newbness fail Sad
7  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Man on the street interviews on: April 20, 2011, 01:32:03 PM
I feel empathy to these people you interviewed. I kind of felt sad Sad
8  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 29, 2011, 02:42:37 AM
In 1900 $1 would equal $25 in 2007. At that rate  the tire chains I found for 25 bitcoin (and I did not find much else definitive) valued at $98-$125 dollars shows that bitcoin is worth (where it is accepted) $4 in 1900 gold backed currency or $100 fiat debt backed currency. (Rounded to even 100's for ease) With no backing of a true commodity the bitcoin is nothing more than a faith based electro-dollar. Basing a means of trade off processor time rather than a universal commodity is folly. Bitcoin states that 21,000,000 coin will be distributed. I say distributed rather that produced for a reason. At 21,000,000 bitcoin worth $4 in backed currency in 1900 that makes bitcoin worth $84,000,000 in total value, assuming you accept its worth. This is not going to sustain a population of 310,000,000, regardless of of how many are producers. It is worse when the majority are consumers. At even distribution that leaves 310,000,000 divided by 84,000,000= .3690476 bitcoin per person (in 1900 gold backed dollars) Go ahead, buy bread for a family with that. In 1900 bread was $.25. Does that leave just over 1 loaf of bread per person with bitcoin? check my math, its always suspect.

All currencies - whether gold, silver or bitcoins - are faith based, this is their principal characteristic. Your utilitarian concern that "we would run out of bitcoins" is analogous to the myth that we would run out of gold if it was used as currency. The amount of bitcoins or any weight of any commodity is completely irrelevant. The whole world's economy encompassing 7 billion people can be ran on 1 bitcoin. Bitcoins are infinitely divisible (just as gold is), meaning you can divide them ad infinitum (for practical purposes they are rounded off to 8 digits for now). This means that if you had 0.3690476 bitcoins, prices in bitcoins would simply be very small, like 0.00000000123432 bitcoins, which is good, lower prices are good Wink You'd end up spending millibitcoins, micro, nano, picobitcoins...

It seems that you and Steph don't really understand how money technically works :s There are a number of technical books on the production of money and how money works at store.mises.org
9  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 29, 2011, 02:28:55 AM
That answer is unsatisfactory to me. My second question is what can I do with a Bitcoin? Gold and Silver and other commodities and resources can be used for productive purposes. A Bitcoin is nothing.

My answer is an academic one Seth, it's just economics 101 :s Ask any monetary economist the same question at mises.org and they will respond that your worries are unfounded.

The purpose of money is to facilitate exchange.. not to use it for industrial purposes. The only reason you'd want it to have another use, is if people lost confidence in it as a facilitator of exchange (money), then it would still keep some value as it can be used in production. Now all the reasons for people losing faith in a gold/silver currency do not exist with bitcoins. There is no way for people losing faith in bitcoins, unless everyone in the market using bitcoins stubbornly decided not to use them anymore and decided to lose all their wealth in bitcoins.
10  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 28, 2011, 03:05:53 AM
I've yet to see a reply to the question: What happens when Bitcoin II and III and IV come out? That would be, in effect, inflation. Would it not?

Seth, no that wouldn't be inflation, although I do understand it might seem counter-intuitive. Prices in bitcoin1s are completely independent of how many bitcoin2s or bitcoin3s or whatever other currency there is and how much there is of it. Products would simply be priced differently in bitcoin1s, bitcoin2s, etc.

With many crypto-currencies competing, people would eventually hold several different currencies in their wallet, and choose to spend them on products that are cheapest to them relative to the strength of the currencies they have in their wallets. So for instance, if bitcoin2s have high inflation, products priced in bitcoin2s will be more expensive than in bitcoin1s.

So again, inflation is relative to a specific currency and does not affect the value of different currencies whatsoever.
11  General Category / General Discussion / Re: Walter Block Comments On Bitcoin on: March 25, 2011, 09:07:51 PM
I dont like the the Bitcoin as its not backed by anything. Bitcoin is not to different from our current fiat currency. It is generated not by acomplishment and innovation in the market, but by turning on a computer. What if one does not own a computer? Would wealth be limited to those that bought a 3rd party product rather than work and inteligence? I see no value in Bitcoin beyond the attempt itself as an exersise.

Bitcoin is backed by the computational proof that there cannot be more than 21million bitcoins in circulation at any point of time.

Bitcoins are cryptographically protected against fraud, and the monetary inflation rate is hard coded in an open source algorithm. It is impossible to produce fake bitcoins, and no one controls the inflation rate.

The reason you want money to be backed by something is in order to restrict inflation, there is no need for that with bitcoins.

You don't see value in a currency that is un-counterfeitable, completely decentralized with no point of failure, that is 100% anonymous and irreversible, that removes the need for a trusted third party such as PayPal to make transactions and that has no transaction fees???
Pages: [1]
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!