anoncowherd

>> we have on the one side a dollar that has endured as a value store and medium of exchange for hundreds of years, and which has proven remarkably resilient (valuable) by any objective measure throughout the worst economic implosion since the Great Depression (which the dollar also survived)

There's something you're overlooking though: the dollar was backed by gold until 1971, and that's where our problems really started mounting.

Krugman's rants can be safely ignored. He either genuinely thinks that the solution to problems created by printing and borrowing way too much money is.. printing and borrowing shitloads more money, or he doesn't actually think that and is a government shill instead.

Either way, he's not to be trusted.

>> BitCoin looks like it was designed as a weapon intended to damage central banking and money issuing banks, with a Libertarian political agenda in mind—to damage states ability to collect tax and monitor their citizens financial transactions

So? Damaging States' ability to forcefully confiscate everyone's wealth is a distinctly good thing, here in the real world.

I wonder if the ever-vigilant FTC has noticed anything shady about what Wall Street has been doing for years now.

It seems he just wanted to draw a parallel between two "manias". I have no idea what will happen to Bitcoin, but it sure does look like a mania. I do see the benefits too, of course.

Most Bitcoins are purchased as a speculation, expecting their value to go way up. It's possible that the gold rush is already over, but it's also possible it's only beginning.

>> Let's see who laughs in 5 years

Hah :P

It's nice to see yet another sane person on HN, by the way.

>> We have to find a way to give the President the power he needs to protect us, while making sure he does not abuse that power.

Now if only he was interested in "protecting us". What you're suggesting is that we need to give a fox the power to protect the hen house, and to ensure it won't abuse that power. What do you think will happen? It's not about the president either, by the way. He's just a puppet for The Powers That Shouldn't Be.

>> But what has really changed?

Not much. The only positive change here is that people are now widely aware that they're being spied on in everything they do online, so now there's less resistance to "conspiracy theories" (ie. "reality"). On the other hand, that very same awareness serves to advance "the chilling effect", so it's unclear if it's even a net positive.

Other than that, everything keeps changing for the worse, of course. The police are increasingly militarized, secret courts keep doing their thing, and people keep losing their liberties. The only possible "solution" to this insanity is spreading awareness of the fact that governments are inherently immoral. They're based on taxation, and taxation itself is based on coercion. The way it works is that people are punished for attempting to keep their property. Does it make sense to punish you for keeping your computer? No? -Okay then, does it make sense to punish you for keeping your money? .. Well no. No it doesn't. Yet, that's exactly how taxation is forced upon everyone. If you do not pay taxes, you will be punished for attempting to keep your property. Something is wrong here.

The only way to "solve" the problem is to spread awareness of it. Political authority is the idea that a small group of people "has the right" to impose their will on everyone else.

In reality though, they obviously do not. Everyone has the exact same rights (and they don't include coercing other people), and you can't delegate rights you do not have. But the belief in political authority is the root cause of practically all problems in today's world. Once the "Authority Religion" unravels, so does mankind's enslavement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngpsJKQR_ZE

>> There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism

It was never about terrorism. In fact, governments like terrorism because it gives them an excuse to grab more power and strip people of their liberties. The surveillance is about control, power and maintaining it. It's meant to be used against the general populace.

"I played a central role in setting up this all-encompassing surveillance, but now that it's been in operation for years, I realize it could be used for naughty things. It's time to blow the whistle on this!"

Binney's case is interesting, to say the least.

.. or he's doing Image Management.

Heyyy, if torture was "regulated" by Congress, The President and his military commanders, I guess it would be alright?

Don't worry about the "inequality", they've always been spying on US citizens too, and still are!

In fact, US citizens are their priority, because they're the ones the US government needs to control and keep in check to maintain their power.

I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, but I suspect you don't actually have one.

You didn't even give the Mises Institute a chance to educate you. If you listen to their in-depth videos on the fundamental "mechanics" of economics, but find yourself disagreeing with what they say, you're pretty much just refusing to hear anything, or simply not very bright.

They're not "fanatic", they're just explaining how economics works, in very clear terms, and in a way that obviously corresponds to reality (because it's all based on the way humans actually behave).

>> pointing to that site to learn about economics is like referring to Glenn Beck's site to learn about President Obama

So where do you learn about Obama? -The mainstream media? How's that "change you can believe in" going? -Oh well, I guess stripping away your civil liberties counts as "change", right?

>> Obviously, most economists have some ideology, but I think you should try to learn from people are are at least not so fanatic.

Nah, I'm fine learning from people who are actually talking about how economics works here in the real world. You just keep on keeping on.

Funny how whenever a company gets enough bad publicity to actually hurt their bottom line, suddenly their customer service runs a bit smoother.

>> It looks like as we were performing server upgrades last week a handful of jobs didn't run as normal

Oh? Did that also cause some kind of downtime in your customer service operations, considering you sure took your sweet time in getting back to him? Funny how the front page of Hacker News makes things run a bit smoother, huh?

>> Minarcho-capitalism has only one moral rule

You just made up a new political philosophy there.

>> It has no considerations of the virtues its system inculcates in people

The virtues "its system" inculcates in people? Look, we're all brainwashed into the cult of statism while growing up, and I've spent my time arguing against sanity too. But you have to draw the line somewhere, and start seeing reason when it's presented to you.

Freedom is not a "system". It's just the absence of coercion. If you want to call waking people up into reality, and trying to get them to be consistent and rational in their thinking "inculcation", then be my guest. But that changes nothing about the nature of the world we actually live in.

>> nor for their utilitarian well-being. It only acknowledges one rule as being a moral factor. Ever.

Even if we all adhere to the NAP, which we're actually naturally inclined to do automatically (because it's not like people walk around wanting to hurt anyone) we're still free to use our common sense whenever the need arises.

In other words, the NAP is not some all-encompassing, universal moral absolute that rules out any and all considerations for what might be the right thing to do in some specific situation.

>> Meaning: go ahead and eat puppies or kick people in debtors' prisons, because you're still obeying the One Rule of not violating private property.

Your brain is working pretty fucking hard in avoiding having to accept reason and reality. As I said, I've had to go through that phase too. But try and get past it already. Let Larken Rose be your therapist: http://www.youtube.com/user/LarkenRose/videos - he's awesome.

>> you can't structure an entire society on one moral rule that corresponds to nothing else in any other form of ethics or morals

But "don't hurt anyone" is a pretty good moral rule, don't you think? -That's basically what the NAP says.

>> That's not how the economy works (international trade is different from local trade, you're not taking employment into account etc.), but for now let's just say that some think a regulated currency is better and some don't

Feel free to tell me why what I described there does not correspond to reality in any meaningful way. If you can't, then maybe you should reconsider your position on "regulated" currencies.

Also, you should investigate http://mises.org - they'll tell you all you need to know about economics. You'll find out that governments are always only a net loss on any economy.

At least it's amusing :)

You may think so, but it's not.

Imagine a scenario like this.

  - There's 10 units of wealth in the world
  - There's 10 units of currency in the world

At this point, 1 unit of currency corresponds to 1 unit of wealth. But what if someone presses a button and conjures up 10 units of the same currency into his own bank account?

  - Still 10 units of wealth in the world
  - Now there's 20 units of currency in the world

.. So now, after someone printed money for himself, 1 unit of currency only corresponds to 0.5 units of the wealth available in the world. So everyone who holds that currency just lost half of their purchasing power, which is kind of bad. But the guy who printed money doesn't give a fuck - his share of the total purchasing power went up from zero to five, after all, while everyone else's dropped.

Of course, this is grossly simplified, and possibly partially wrong/inaccurate etc, but you get the idea, right? We really do lose purchasing power when more currency goes into circulation.

Besides, we haven't even touched the effects of zero interest rates, borrowing massive amounts of money that will never be repaid, economic stagnation, an ever larger portion of the national tax revenues going towards paying interest on the ever more massive debts, and so on.. It's all bad, and it's all something that: 1) we do not want to happen, and 2) would not happen in a free market (with a market-chosen currency etc).

But don't take just my word for it: http://mises.org

>> Personally, I believe currencies are better when they're regulated by governments.

Stop believing that. The exact opposite is true. If we could all use a currency that no one could manipulate at the press of a button somewhere behind the scenes, we would. But as long as governments control money, we're shit out of luck there - they're printing and borrowing money as they please, debasing their currencies and causing all kinds of grief to the little folks, ie. us.

You're right to be skeptical about Bitcoin though. It's basically a "speculative investment vehicle", as someone mentioned. Until that changes, you should be cautious about buying them. The gold rush is probably over.

( Or not. But no one knows. )

Yep, and obviously I figured you wouldn't actually go punch someone in the face. It's just that I'd like to see that declaration made less often :)

>> In which case you're preaching pure, deontological bunk with no relation to the real world whatsoever.

I just gave you a real-world demonstration of why minimum wage is harmful, and in very clear terms too. But I'm done with you for now.

I get the sentiment, but don't you think punching someone in the face is a bit too much?

>> I was swayed by Stefan Molyneux's Philosophical arguments for Individualist Anarchy. The only sticking point I still have is the question of wage labour, which I am opposed to

Good job so far. Next, you need more knowledge of economics: http://mises.org and you'll get around to reaching full sanity :p

>> I mean, I think you're just asking me to restate my original argument. That's fine---I probably went too fast, anyway.

Not really, mostly just trying to get you to see it doesn't make sense.

I won't go through your example with the US and Iran now, let's concentrate on your rationale for using force. You keep talking about retaliatory force but without anything to retaliate for.

First, someone has to initiate force against you, before you can retaliate with force, and you can't retaliate against some innocent bystander. If A has never done anything to harm anyone, B simply can't retaliate against him. It makes no sense.

Likewise, if Person A has never harmed anyone, then Government B simply cannot use force on A in retaliation for anything, regardless of the fact that taxes are needed for any government to do anything.

Furthermore, the mere possibility that someone somewhere might use force against you does not enable any kind of retaliation on your part. You just can't retaliate if no one has wronged you yet.

>> That does not justify the claim of "immoral" because it does not link it to a philosophical theory of morality that itself is, ultimately, logically derived from and necessitated by perceptual reality.

How about the idea of natural rights and the Non-Aggression Principle? -How about common sense, and our intuitive morality as human beings? For example, do you personally have the right to take someone else's property by force, even though he's never done anything to harm anyone?

>> That is just a floating axiom that they arbitrarily assume. Some of them have deeper philosophical arguments for it, presumably, but many do not believe that such are necessary

The problem with philosophical debates is that anyone can just filibuster any conversation by delving into semantics or the nature of language or the meaning of specific words or whatever, or ultimately the nature of reality itself. "What do we really know about reality, or the nature of man as a life-form? For all we know, we could be living in a simulation!"

That's why it's understandable if some libertarians don't feel like bothering to argue about morality. But as for the NAP ("non-aggression axiom"), it really is axiomatic, and that's already enough by itself. You know it's wrong to aggress against anyone, and so does everyone else. It's just that if this principle is consistently applied to everyone regardless of whether they're in uniform or not, then governments are clearly seen as immoral.

>> In a state of nature (i.e. if the government suddenly disappeared), force rules.

Does it? Think about how many people you know would go on a killing spree if suddenly there was no government tomorrow. -How about a string of robberies?

.. Or would most people just continue their everyday lives, trying to get by comfortably? -That's certainly what people in general would do in a free society, just like that's the way they behave now. If you don't have any intention of hurting anyone, then you have no problem adhering to the NAP.

>> The only way to get out of a state of nature is to use force to elimiate it

Let's get this straight. Because the use of force is immoral, we need even more force to prevent the use of force, by force?

The use of force is immoral, so you want to establish the ultimate force - a monopoly on violence, to extort people in order to prevent the use of force?

We need to engage in Immorality, to prevent Immorality?

In other words, we need to do that which is forbidden, to discourage others from doing the same, because doing what's forbidden is.. forbidden?

We need to Violate, to prevent Violations, because Violations are not allowed?

Are you starting to see it? Do you see that if you adhere to the moral principle that the initiation of force is immoral, and thus, forbidden, then you can't base a whole society on top of exactly that which is forbidden, while still claiming to adhere to that specific moral principle. You can't get around that either, by making "retaliation" mean something that it does not actually mean here in the real world.

Alright. Keep up the good work, fellow sane person :p

Right on the mark there.

>> I truly don't think anarcho-capitalism is an abomination. I've come to this stance FROM being a socialist because it's the only moral way of doing things. Thoughts?

My suggestion would be to embrace anarcho-capitalism fully, if you're not quite there yet. It's the only moral, reasonable, logical, and consistent way of viewing societies. The Non-Aggression Principle explicitly forbids the initiation of force, which includes any coercion. The flipside of that is that everything should be voluntary, which should be really hard to reasonably argue against.

Are you already aware that free markets produce the most wealth to the largest percentage of people anyway? It's all about letting people produce wealth and spread it around through voluntary exchanges, after all. Check out http://mises.org

It seems we're mostly on the same page :p