ferdo

It's a toe-dip in the water by a very large swimmer. A good sign for Bitcoin.

> You should be embarrassed to argue this way.

You should be embarrassed for defending Orin Kerr.

> I've been here long enough to know that you're getting upvoted for comments like these

I got downvoted. Maybe you want to revisit what you think you think you know and enjoy bloviating about.

I read the "new" page because that's where the some of the best stuff on the net flies under the radar.

Not everything good gets upvoted and not everything upvoted is good.

> It's a site about law, courts, and lawsuits. These things are all about process.

Reading Orin Kerr is akin to reading someone critique the actions of the principals in a waterboarding without critiquing the rightness or wrongness of waterboarding itself.

There's a creepy overtone to that kind of commentary.

It's not scaremongering if it's true. Beyond what's been leaked, there's little to no public information the TPP. It's apparently a big secret only large multinats and selected members of government are in on.

"The stakeholder engagement events in the morning were followed by a stakeholder briefing in the afternoon. The briefing allowed registered individuals from civil society and the public to ask questions of and make comments to eight out of the nine negotiators who represent a TPP country. The press was barred from the room. Roughly 25 people rose from the audience to ask questions to the trade delegates during the 90-minute briefing period. As predicted, they were not transparent about the talks, revealed little new information, and delegates also refused to make any comments based on leaked version of texts—the only text EFF and other public interest organizations have had access to. It is difficult for public stakeholders to ask accurate questions or receive any substantive answers when the content of the agreement continues to be shrouded in secrecy."

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/09/tpp-trade-delegates-sh...

It's hard to know the facts because much of the TPP negotiations and data are being kept secret:

"Lack of transparency: The entire process has shut out multi-stakeholder participation and is shrouded in secrecy."

- https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp

> It is telling that you avoided the actual argument in my comment.

You told me you were running away and I didn't want to waste my time. Apologies for taking you at your word.

> the burden of proof ends up more on the side of the accused then on the gov't.

That's how tyrannies operate.

Obligatory. I'm guessing this is from mid-80's:

http://allpoetry.com/poem/8509517-16-bit-Intel-8088-chip-by-...

That trick worked even during the Inquisition. The State never changes tactics.

> If you're fine with criminalizing the sale of contaminated meat

I'm fine with criminalizing any form of fraud. Selling contaminated meat as good meat is fraud. If someone sold aspirin with heroin in it but didn't label it as such, they'd be guilty of fraud also.

> You'd better serve your interests

If my interests aren't in line with my principles, that would make me more of a hypocrite than we're already forced to be at times.

> the definition of what "criminals" means is independent of the value judgement of the correctness of the state's laws.

Do you have proof which is not from a State-backed agency on this assertion?

> Lysander Spooner is not a mainstream American political philosopher

Immaterial. He's been an large influence on American political life[1], alive and dead.

> I'm also going to...duck, and run away.

I always appreciate this response from people with an attachment to the government/State than the more common approach which is to call people names. Many thanks.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysander_Spooner#American_Lette...

> criminals, by definition, commit crimes -- violations of criminal law.

This is only true if one takes the State's part in these discussions. The State can claim that certain forms of agriculture are illegal but that doesn't magically make those forms of agriculture criminal endeavors in anyone's eyes but those with an interest in the State's narrative.

> Do you want to live in a world where buying a simple OTC sleep pill at Walgreen's exposes you to the risk of ingesting heroin or some other decidedly narcotic substance?

I'd prefer to live in a world where I could choose to use any medicine I wish to use.

It's the liberty/security thing all over again. I prefer the insecurity of liberty to the security of having an overseer. My opinion has always been in the minority through all of history, btw.

> if you are at liberty to do it, it's not criminal, and if it's a crime, you are not at liberty to do it.

I perceive it elsewise. If someone abuses their liberty to commit fraud or violence, then they're a criminal. Criminals, by definition, seek to use fraud or force to get their way.

Not all things deemed illegal by the State are crimes by any definition except the State's if they have an interest in regulating some form of human behavior or interaction.

No, it's thinking based in classic American political philosophy[1], not a worn-out internet meme.

[1] "Vices Are Not Crimes" by Lysander Spooner

http://www.lysanderspooner.org/VicesAreNotCrimes.htm

> the liberty of selling contaminated meat

That's not liberty. That's criminal behavior that stems from criminal thinking. If government has any legitimate function at all, it's to prevent injustice from criminals and other predators.

When government becomes the seat of criminality and predation, quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

> He's right, and you're wrong.

I parse this as, "I agree with him, not you" as these are all just our opinions anyway.

In the 1930's, people traded the liberty of growing hemp for the security of keeping stoned black jazz musicians from raping their daughters (that was one of the reasons put forth by Harry Anslinger[1] in the era). We see how that trade has worked out, much as giving up the liberty of privacy for the security of government oversight of communications has put us where we are now.

Point being that the liberty/security trade isn't a false dichotomy.

[1] "Most marijuana smokers are Negroes, Hispanics, jazz musicians, and entertainers. Their satanic music is driven by marijuana, and marijuana smoking by white women makes them want to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and others. It is a drug that causes insanity, criminality, and death — the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind."

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Harry_J._Anslinger

> That is what laws inherently are, rules that limit an individuals ability for the greater good of society.

Not to be unkind, but this is a simplistic view of law and realpolitiks. As an example, can you honestly say that arresting hundreds of thousands of peaceful weed smokers annually is a "greater good"?

> governments are ultimately the overseers that permit networking infrastructure comprising the internet to be built...society depends on accountability

There are two conflicting thoughts here. If we're not entitled to the same anonymity that those spying on us have, then we're servants, not members of a just society.

We can have a government as overseer of communications or we can have a just society. We can't have both.

It's an adage so old that it seems trite but it's still true: We can have Liberty or Security but if we pick Security over Liberty, we'll lose both.

That may be true for money issued by a central authority. Bitcoin appears to upset a few apple carts as far as conventional wisdom goes.

In its short life, Bitcoin has outperformed every other asset on the market and is holding its value. It's up almost 10x from where it was this time last year.

Those difficulties aren't Bitcoin's problems. Those are political problems that we have to confront or circumvent.

Bitcoin has just a few tasks and it does them very well so far.

It's up from here. Odd.

nsa.gov is still up, so they do have some priorities.

I want to know who ever trusted Microsoft to begin with?

This will die a quick death just for its deceptive name. It should be called Ad Designer.

Agreed. The blockchain itself is an intellectual breakthrough, at least in application.

When reporters are getting busted at prestigious American universities for just being there, the other side of the story is plain to see.