Negative vs. Positive Rights

[NickViar]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
How does one control gold? One can be voluntarily paid in gold, or one can steal gold; in other words, one can OWN gold, but nobody can control it. It’s a naturally occurring substance. I used lifti’s word, but I probably should have come up with something better than “control.” There’s a difference, at least in my opinion, between physically controlling a currency, and being able to create currency on a whim. [/quote]
See Roosevelt, Franklin D, Executive Order 6102.[/quote]

Varq, I believe that order belongs in the “steal gold” category…

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.[/quote]

Nobody is in control of bitcoin; it’s not a fiat currency; it’s maintained by a distributed network verifying the trust of each other with cryptography.

Just like no one particular entity owns the internet nobody owns bitcoin - it’s just a protocol like tcp/ip.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

Creditors agree to assume this risk as the cost of doing business.
[/quote]

This what I said wayyyyyy back in the thread but someone disagreed with me that they would not. It’s been going in circles since.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

If a technology overpowers the existing state, the owner of that technology will become the state. All humans are fucked up, and none of us will ever permit other humans to do as they please.
[/quote]

Technology is moving in such a way that no one entity will be in control it. Call it the redundancy principle. Distributed networks are key.

To your last point: if “all humans are fucked up” then government must be pretty fucked up too and should therefore not be trusted and immediately abolished for the sake of humanity.

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
If something becomes profitable, it will be regulated. If something is not profitable, it will cease to exist. All innovation is private innovation, but every innovation has been either given to or taken by those with the greatest force.[/quote]

You are correct about the last statement but the point of agorism is to minimize the ability of an organization to use force; for example, if people started using crpyto-currencies there would be no way for the IRS to seize someone’s assets - not to mention the bonus feature of making the government essentially broke.[/quote]

Cryptocurrencies are still fiat money. That’s the problem with them. The current IRS may not be able to seize someone’s assets, but those in control of the cryptocurrencies would become the new predator.[/quote]

Well, it’s the same with gold or any hard money though…those in control of the gold are still top of the food chain[/quote]

If only a few persons owned most of the money (or gold) then people would find something more liquid for an exchange medium because prices would be very expensive due to lack of circulation.

This is exactly the stage that bitcoin is in right now.

But make no mistake, this is no fiat currency that is controlled by some central authority.

[NickViar]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

If a technology overpowers the existing state, the owner of that technology will become the state. All humans are fucked up, and none of us will ever permit other humans to do as they please.
[/quote]

Technology is moving in such a way that no one entity will be in control it. Call it the redundancy principle. Distributed networks are key.

To your last point: if “all humans are fucked up” then government must be pretty fucked up too and should therefore not be trusted and immediately abolished for the sake of humanity.[/quote]

I agree that no government should be trusted and all should be immediately abolished. Accomplishing that is a different thing altogether; as long as three humans exist, statism will.

[countingbeans]

See what I’m saying?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

To your last point: if “all humans are fucked up” then government must be pretty fucked up too and should therefore not be trusted and immediately abolished for the sake of humanity.[/quote]

I agree that no government should be trusted and all should be immediately abolished. Accomplishing that is a different thing altogether; as long as three humans exist, statism will.
[/quote]

Guys, bold part = good. A lot fo people will agree, and you’ll have a voice people want to listen to…

Italics is where you fall off the rails into fantasy world and therefore will NEVER, not even once, have any hope of actually effecting any significant amount of change.

[NickViar]

As for Bitcoin vs. fiat currency: How can Bitcoin be used as something other than currency?

[NickViar]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
See what I’m saying?

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

To your last point: if “all humans are fucked up” then government must be pretty fucked up too and should therefore not be trusted and immediately abolished for the sake of humanity.[/quote]

I agree that no government should be trusted and all should be immediately abolished. Accomplishing that is a different thing altogether; as long as three humans exist, statism will.
[/quote]

Guys, bold part = good. A lot fo people will agree, and you’ll have a voice people want to listen to…

Italics is where you fall off the rails into fantasy world and therefore will NEVER, not even once, have any hope of actually effecting any significant amount of change. [/quote]

Some believe that calling others “government” makes them trustworthy; you believe that calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy. You seem to indicate that you believe some people can be trusted with power, yet you oppose monarchy. You believe thiat calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy, yet you support democracy, a system in which all voters are government. Are your beliefs less fantastic than the beliefs of someone that admits humans are seriously flawed?

[countingbeans]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
you believe that calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy. [/quote]

No. I believe humans in general have proven over time to not be the most trustworthy things on Earth when they have power. Whether they be part of a collective (government) or each individual, it doesn’t matter.

I mean, you can continue to project or using conjecture to assume what I believe if you want, but I doubt you’ll nail it down any time soon.

You seem to indicate that you believe some people can be trusted with power,

Of course SOME people can be.

yet you oppose monarchy.

Of course.

You believe that calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy,

See above.

yet you support democracy,

If you can find where I’ve said as such at any point in the last 2+ years I’ll give you $1,000.

Protip, you won’t.

Democratically electing representatives does not a democracy make.

You’re smarter than this. Stop trying to make up shit out of thin air because you know I’m right in that you’re ideas are never going to have enough traction for you to effect change in the real world, so you’re only hope is to burn the entire structure down.

a system in which all voters are government.

Again, you’re completely making shit up at this point.

Yawn.

Are your beliefs less fantastic than the beliefs of someone that admits humans are seriously flawed?

This part doesn’t even make any fucking sense.

[NickViar]

[quote][quote]counting beans wrote:
NickViar wrote:
you believe that calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy. [/quote]

No. I believe humans in general have proven over time to not be the most trustworthy things on Earth when they have power. Whether they be part of a collective (government) or each individual, it doesn’t matter.

I mean, you can continue to project or using conjecture to assume what I believe if you want, but I doubt you’ll nail it down any time soon. [/quote]
I must have been confused by the parts where you said not trusting government is good, and referred to not trusting humans with power as falling off a rocker(or something to that effect).

[quote]You seem to indicate that you believe some people can be trusted with power,

Of course SOME people can be. [/quote]
Ah, so we probably shouldn’t cancel out their power by granting power to others, right?

[quote]yet you oppose monarchy.

Of course. [/quote]
Okay

[quote]You believe that calling others “government” makes them untrustworthy,

See above. [/quote]
Where above? “Of course.”?

[quote]yet you support democracy,

If you can find where I’ve said as such at any point in the last 2+ years I’ll give you $1,000.

Protip, you won’t.

Democratically electing representatives does not a democracy make.

You’re smarter than this. Stop trying to make up shit out of thin air because you know I’m right in that you’re ideas are never going to have enough traction for you to effect change in the real world, so you’re only hope is to burn the entire structure down. [/quote]
Representative democracy is definitely a type of democracy.

[quote]a system in which all voters are government.

Again, you’re completely making shit up at this point.

Yawn. [/quote]
Sorry, I thought that in the United States, “We the people” ARE the government.

[quote]Are your beliefs less fantastic than the beliefs of someone that admits humans are seriously flawed?

This part doesn’t even make any fucking sense.
[/quote]
You indicated that it is good not to trust people called “government,” then went on to indicate that it’s crazy not to trust people to be government. I say that people can’t be trusted. Which is crazier?

[NickViar]

I forgot exactly what it was that you indicated was crazy. It seems that you take issue with my claim that statism will exist as long as there are three humans.

I think that a man and woman would probably be able to coexist. Two men would probably just split the Earth. Three men(sorry if it’s offensively sexist that I leave a woman out in this scenario) would probably split Earth in thirds; two men would get together and realize that they could claim more land by killing the third. They would most likely do that and split Earth; however, the third man, seeing that he has no chance, may offer his land in exchange for his life. Obviously, with the third man now owning nothing, he will have nowhere to go. The others may kill him for trespassing on their lands, or the others may allow him to work for them in exchange for a place to live. Of course, human beings aren’t like that now; we’re civilized.

[Varqanir]

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I forgot exactly what it was that you indicated was crazy. It seems that you take issue with my claim that statism will exist as long as there are three humans.

I think that a man and woman would probably be able to coexist. Two men would probably just split the Earth. Three men(sorry if it’s offensively sexist that I leave a woman out in this scenario) would probably split Earth in thirds; two men would get together and realize that they could claim more land by killing the third. They would most likely do that and split Earth; however, the third man, seeing that he has no chance, may offer his land in exchange for his life. Obviously, with the third man now owning nothing, he will have nowhere to go. The others may kill him for trespassing on their lands, or the others may allow him to work for them in exchange for a place to live. Of course, human beings aren’t like that now; we’re civilized.[/quote]

And two men and a woman?

The two men would split the earth, then kill each other over who gets to fuck the woman. Then after they’re dead, the woman would own the whole fucking planet.

[NickViar]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I forgot exactly what it was that you indicated was crazy. It seems that you take issue with my claim that statism will exist as long as there are three humans.

I think that a man and woman would probably be able to coexist. Two men would probably just split the Earth. Three men(sorry if it’s offensively sexist that I leave a woman out in this scenario) would probably split Earth in thirds; two men would get together and realize that they could claim more land by killing the third. They would most likely do that and split Earth; however, the third man, seeing that he has no chance, may offer his land in exchange for his life. Obviously, with the third man now owning nothing, he will have nowhere to go. The others may kill him for trespassing on their lands, or the others may allow him to work for them in exchange for a place to live. Of course, human beings aren’t like that now; we’re civilized.[/quote]

And two men and a woman?

The two men would split the earth, then kill each other over who gets to fuck the woman. Then after they’re dead, the woman would own the whole fucking planet.
[/quote]

Hmm…good question(of course, there’s no reason that they would kill each other…one would most likely just kill the other and win).

[Varqanir]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I forgot exactly what it was that you indicated was crazy. It seems that you take issue with my claim that statism will exist as long as there are three humans.

I think that a man and woman would probably be able to coexist. Two men would probably just split the Earth. Three men(sorry if it’s offensively sexist that I leave a woman out in this scenario) would probably split Earth in thirds; two men would get together and realize that they could claim more land by killing the third. They would most likely do that and split Earth; however, the third man, seeing that he has no chance, may offer his land in exchange for his life. Obviously, with the third man now owning nothing, he will have nowhere to go. The others may kill him for trespassing on their lands, or the others may allow him to work for them in exchange for a place to live. Of course, human beings aren’t like that now; we’re civilized.[/quote]

And two men and a woman?

The two men would split the earth, then kill each other over who gets to fuck the woman. Then after they’re dead, the woman would own the whole fucking planet.
[/quote]

Hmm…good question(of course, there’s no reason that they would kill each other…one would most likely just kill the other and win). [/quote]

The story of the Bounty Mutineers on the island of Pitcairn ought to change your mind.

[NickViar]

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:
I forgot exactly what it was that you indicated was crazy. It seems that you take issue with my claim that statism will exist as long as there are three humans.

I think that a man and woman would probably be able to coexist. Two men would probably just split the Earth. Three men(sorry if it’s offensively sexist that I leave a woman out in this scenario) would probably split Earth in thirds; two men would get together and realize that they could claim more land by killing the third. They would most likely do that and split Earth; however, the third man, seeing that he has no chance, may offer his land in exchange for his life. Obviously, with the third man now owning nothing, he will have nowhere to go. The others may kill him for trespassing on their lands, or the others may allow him to work for them in exchange for a place to live. Of course, human beings aren’t like that now; we’re civilized.[/quote]

And two men and a woman?

The two men would split the earth, then kill each other over who gets to fuck the woman. Then after they’re dead, the woman would own the whole fucking planet.
[/quote]

Hmm…good question(of course, there’s no reason that they would kill each other…one would most likely just kill the other and win). [/quote]

The story of the Bounty Mutineers on the island of Pitcairn ought to change your mind.[/quote]

Why? I’m not real familiar with the story, but did one man not outlast the others?

[countingbeans]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

I must have been confused by the parts where you said not trusting government is good, and referred to not trusting humans with power as falling off a rocker(or something to that effect).[/quote]

You’re certainly confused. My post is pretty clear. You can continue to pretend you don’t understand it, however, don’t try and twist my words around into something they didn’t say.

[quote]
Ah, so we probably shouldn’t cancel out their power by granting power to others, right?[/quote]

Are you purposely pulling nonsense directly out of your ass? Please show me where I said anything about removing checks and balances.

[quote]
Where above? “Of course.”?[/quote]

Why are you playing dumb?

[quote]
Representative democracy is definitely a type of democracy.[/quote]

Sigh… Along with not teaching you the facts and circumstances surrounding slavery, apparently your high school education also lacked basic civics.

America is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. If you don’t know how the 3 branches of the federal government work, and then in conjunction with the states, I suggest you rectify that.

America, very much so the federal government, is anything but a democracy. Some states may, at times, have some laws decided by democratic means but those get over turned if they violate the Constitution, in the courts opinion.

I’m not going to explain this further, because I know you get it, and are playing the fool in order to try and somehow justify your AnCap nonsense.

[quote]

[quote]a system in which all voters are government.

Again, you’re completely making shit up at this point.

Yawn. [/quote]
Sorry, I thought that in the United States, “We the people” ARE the government.[/quote]

sigh…

You indicated that it is good not to trust people called “government,” then went on to indicate that it’s crazy not to trust people to be government. I say that people can’t be trusted. Which is crazier?

Jesus H Christ.

They aren’t simply “called” government. Pick your head up out of a Rothbard book and take a look at reality.

Aside from that, you’re completely misrepresenting my position. Try again and I’ll actually give a substantive response.

[NickViar]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
America is a constitutional republic with democratically elected representatives. If you don’t know how the 3 branches of the federal government work, and then in conjunction with the states, I suggest you rectify that.

America, very much so the federal government, is anything but a democracy. Some states may, at times, have some laws decided by democratic means but those get over turned if they violate the Constitution, in the courts opinion.

I’m not going to explain this further, because I know you get it, and are playing the fool in order to try and somehow justify your AnCap nonsense. [/quote]

Is or was? A fellow once said of the type of government given the United States, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Have we? A republic was not guaranteed forever.

Take the Second Amendment, for instance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If we have a republic, how do we then explain the National Firearms Act? Even if states were originally intended to have the right to restrict firearms in any way they wished, the federal government did not.

Edit: It can always be argued that the United States is an oligarchy(a form of government in which all power is vested in a dominant class or clique–what can’t the elected do?).

[countingbeans]

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Is or was? A fellow once said of the type of government given the United States, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Have we? [/quote]

Yes. For the most part, yes.

She isn’t perfect, but She certainly isn’t the cesspool so many try and portray her as.

The prohibition of Same Sex Marriage passed by ballot proposal and overturned in courts is one of the most recent cases in memory when majority opinion conveyed through vote was struck down as a no-no.

A republic was not guaranteed forever.

Sure it is. It is even spelled out in the quote. We just have to do our part.

Take the Second Amendment, for instance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If we have a republic, how do we then explain the National Firearms Act? Even if states were originally intended to have the right to restrict firearms in any way they wished, the federal government did not.

“in order to form a more perfect union”

Not everything the government does or did will be perfect, and again, we have to do our part to challenge unjust laws in court, or elect people with a spine.

Edit: It can always be argued that the United States is an oligarchy(a form of government in which all power is vested in a dominant class or clique–what can’t the elected do?).

100% the fault of the electorate, if this is true, and I’m not convinced that it is some steadfast rule that can’t be broken quite easily.

[NickViar]

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

Is or was? A fellow once said of the type of government given the United States, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” Have we? [/quote]

Yes. For the most part, yes.

She isn’t perfect, but She certainly isn’t the cesspool so many try and portray her as.

The prohibition of Same Sex Marriage passed by ballot proposal and overturned in courts is one of the most recent cases in memory when majority opinion conveyed through vote was struck down as a no-no. [/quote]
-That’s good evidence that this is an oligarchy.

[quote]A republic was not guaranteed forever.

Sure it is. It is even spelled out in the quote. We just have to do our part. [/quote]
-That ship has sailed.

[quote]Take the Second Amendment, for instance: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” If we have a republic, how do we then explain the National Firearms Act? Even if states were originally intended to have the right to restrict firearms in any way they wished, the federal government did not.

“in order to form a more perfect union”

Not everything the government does or did will be perfect, and again, we have to do our part to challenge unjust laws in court, or elect people with a spine. [/quote]
-Again, that ship has sailed. Do-gooderism has perverted the system and proven, once again, that the law of unintended consequences exists.

[quote]Edit: It can always be argued that the United States is an oligarchy(a form of government in which all power is vested in a dominant class or clique–what can’t the elected do?).

100% the fault of the electorate, if this is true, and I’m not convinced that it is some steadfast rule that can’t be broken quite easily.
[/quote]
-I agree that it’s 100% the fault of the electorate, but I disagree that it can be quite easily changed.