Messages

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

1

The Show / Re: Less Stephanie, Please

« on: January 18, 2012, 01:00:34 PM »

+1 to Stephanie for finally getting the Bitcoin bug.

(I'm behind on my FTL podcasts, just ran across this. I actually enjoy listening to her when she's being technical, and the idea of her accepting bitcoins as a doctor is a great one.)

2

The Show / Re: Less Stephanazi, Please

« on: December 11, 2011, 10:29:55 AM »

I gave no opinion about that video. Looks like I kind of agree with Wayne, who (if one looks at the Youtube comments) kind of agrees with Stephan Molyneux.
Doesn't matter really, simple fact is, we need the chicks. Culture goes where the hot chicks are going. Period.
I notice no other women are exactly jumping on board to defend Stephanie. I think her point is that we guys need to learn how not to creep girls out, and it is a valid point. However Stephanie should learn something herself; Men would rather be know as a jerk than a creeper. Shouldn't women be a little careful about accusing men of creeping on them?
I think Stephanie will be a necessary balancing point on LRN as the Angel Clark show becomes more known. If we somehow get Sex, Lies, and Anarchy on LRN as well, Stephanie will be one female voice among many, and her harping (If you want to call it that, I mean come on, that P&TG episode was pretty harsh) won't really be noticeable.
Note: I haven't heard every episode of Sex, Lies and Anarchy, but they defend men in general quite a bit, and their "lesbian" kidding around is kind of cute and funny. Point is I never feel offended at all, nor do they come off as arrogant or know-it-all or unapproachable. That Angel Clark show is just good, sounds mainstream.

Well, just on the chance I gave that impression, my rant wasn't directed at you. It was just directed at the insinuations of the video that I found irksome.

Here's hoping, probably in vain, that tonight's broadcast doesn't continue the trend.

3

The Show / Re: Less Stephanazi, Please

« on: December 11, 2011, 07:20:15 AM »

Libertarian Feminism is Superior to Liberal Feminism

Well, that kinda struck a nerve.

This right here is an example of what I'm talking about, and why Stephanie annoys me.

Let's jump to the conclusion of this vid. Despite the warm, fuzzy, we-can-all-agree-with-this last line in the clip, it's the second-to-last line that deserves scrutiny. Right after trying to soften the blow by acknowledging women have some blame in the abuses by the state, the primary conclusion of this entire clip is distilled down to:

Let's be brutally honest, when it comes to the destruction of liberty, it's the men who lead the way.

I already know some here don't see the problem with this concluding statement. After all, it's technically true, right? Well, let's alter it a bit:

Let's be brutally honest, when it comes to imperialism, it's the whites who lead the way.

That time you noticed it, right? (If you didn't, well, just save time and stop reading, because I'm not sure how to get the point across.)

While both statements may be technically true, the question is, why bother stating it? In particular, with the video above, what's the implication that makes such a "Captain Obvious" statement the summary conclusion of a several-minute Youtube clip?

I think there are two implications. (1) Women are superior to men, at least as regards liberty, and (2) well, we should be thankful that at least they're not liberal feminists, because libertarian feminists are much better.

I think both of these implications are loads of crap.


(1) Women aren't superior. Isn't it a feminist belief that the sexes are equal? Well, in my experience, this is the proclamation of the more reasonable feminist, but the truth is, it's in subtle instances like the above that the actual truth of their thinking is revealed.

Here's some brutal honesty: people in general have tended toward tyranny through the ages. The only reason women haven't been dishing out as much as the men is because of the very physical disadvantage mentioned. Had there been physical parity, or physical dominance on the part of women, there's no doubt in my mind history would not have been significantly different.

Men's primary participation in tyranny through the past has been due to nothing other than circumstance, so why one would focus on it as if there's something that needs to be fixed BEYOND true freedom and equality strikes me as suspect. This is where I begin to question someone's intellectual honesty.


(2) False dichotomy. Let's presume that libertarian feminism is better than liberal feminism. I'd normally argue otherwise, because the former is simply more subtle and, IMHO, more effective at actually inculcating the errors of feminism (see (1), above) into society. But again, let's presume the former is better.

Why are these the only two options? Are we supposed to just accept that feminism is here, good or not, and that we should just grin and bear the libertarian form because it's more palatable? That's certainly the implication of the very title of the video. Again, that implication is crap.

Big Guy (to a crowd of men): Look fellas, we know you don't like feminism.
Crowd of Men: *groans all around*
Big Guy: But hey, at least these are libertarian feminists
Crowd of Men: *murmurs*
Male Voice #1 (from the crowd): They don't get in our face and yell a lot, do they?
Big Guy: No, they don't, and we need to be thankful for that. Remember, they've been through a lot, and so we need to be sensitive and allow it to happen if it does. But at least the libertarians do a lot less of it.
Male Voice #2 (from the crowd): But I thought we were supposed to be equal.
Big Guy (shrugging): Yeah, we are.
Male Voice #2: Then how come we need to let any of them yell at us, but we can't yell back?
Crowd of Men: *more murmuring*
Big Guy (nervous): Look fellas, look, that's just the way it is. No point in getting upset, it's not gonna change. Might as well go with the flow and take the better deal.
Male Voice #3: But if we're equal, then we're equal, right?!
Crowd of Men: *louder murmurs*
Big Guy (now angry): Alright boys, you still aren't getting it.
*Big Guy throws on movie projector.*
*Hour-long video detailing the abuses of women by men through the ages plays.*
*Graphic scenes shock men.*
*Vicarious guilt is distributed.*
*Big Guy turns the lights back on.*
Big Guy: Any questions?
Crowd of Men (heads hung low): *murmurs of "No"*
Big Guy: Good. Now, go out there and spread the message of liberty!

tl;dr - Libertarian feminism isn't better than liberal feminism. Both just peddle a hypocritical perspective that doesn't advance liberty any more than actually promoting equality.

4

The Show / Re: Less Stephanie, Please

« on: December 09, 2011, 03:36:23 PM »

I've decided to listen to every episode of Free Talk Live a week, except Sunday.
Mr. Edge, consider another host or go back to the guest show format.

Huh. Thought I might be alone on this.

I have nothing personal against Stephanie. But this past Sunday, I looked at the topics list for the podcast, kinda sighed, and decided to just not listen. Eventually I suspect I may just stop checking the Sunday show all together.

Fact is, when Stephanie is on, the show tends to take on a certain tone. One that is NOT brought about by any of the other female hosts. I think "harping," as someone else mentioned, is the closest to how I could describe it.

It's sort of how everytime a caller mentions drugs, I just know Ian is going to spend several seconds on a defense of pot. Sometimes its a bit too long, or out of place, or just annoying in the context of the call... I roll my eyes and just wait for the moment to pass.

Stephanie has the same fixation/passion/pet issue/whatever with feminist issues. The thing is, where it can be demonstrated that, like it or not, the drug issue has a pro-liberty side, and Ian is consistently on it, Stephanie's feminism doesn't.  It usually just seems to be her personal preferences spun to somehow be an important issue for the liberty movement (we get it, you don't like "girl." Don't know how the boys have been allowed to get away with that for so long.)

Moreover, much of the time Stephanie's perspective seems clearly skewed, even biased, sometimes to the point where I don't even think she's being intellectually honest anymore. There was a recent Sunday show where a guest was on who talked about, IIRC, domestic violence toward men. I understand many people are unaware of the facts about it. But I seem to recall that at a couple of points Stephanie seemed to take offense to some of the stats, or verbiage, or something, as if she wanted to argue with the guest. As if the guest (female) was attacking women simply by pointing out facts very similar to the ones Stephanie likes to focus on.

tl;dr - Stephanie's feminist fixation is much worse, less relevant, and far more annoying than Ian's drug fixation, to the point I just get tired of listening to the Sunday show. Just my two cents.

5

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 22, 2011, 08:10:24 AM »

People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.

But cash is universally accepted. And if instead of FRNs you use Silver (or convenient Shire Silver cards) as cash, you also have a store of value, which Bitcoint ain't.

Yes, cash is universally accepted. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to use alternative means of exchange, like silver, which aren't. In fact, I would think that for liberty-minded folk, local trade in silver and gold would be ideal. Unfortunately, the fed is cracking down pretty hard on means of digitally transferring precious metals beyond your local community (I was really hoping eLibertyDollars would have become the standard for that.)

A non-FRN alternative for online exchange would be nice, wouldn't it?

Bitcoin: many downsides, no upside

Seriously? You can't see a single upside?

6

General / Re: Bitcoins are now "worthless"

« on: June 22, 2011, 04:36:45 AM »

http://nerdr.com/bitcoin-exchange-scam-bitcoins-are-worthless/

Bitcoin Exchange Scam – Bitcoins Are Now Worthless

http://nerdr.com/shutting-down-bitcoin-really-taking-down-the-bitcoin-network/

Shutting Down Bitcoin – Taking Down The Bitcoin Network

But it's not as bad as it sounds:

http://www.infosecurity-us.com/view/18796/online-currency-bitcoin-loses-most-of-its-value-due-to-exchange-hack/

The exchange said that once it is back online, trading on Bitcoins will revert to the level before the breach, that is, $17.50 per Bitcoin. The value of the currency had plunged to pennies as a result of the hack. Users will be required to enter a new password once trading resumes.

Fortunately, Mt. Gox isn't the only exchange. Even if it was, it isn't the final authority on how much a bitcoin costs; there are ways to determine prices apart from any central exchange.

I'm a little tempted to scold the folks who are seriously upset over this. Bitcoins are decentralized. Having so many people (including a lot of speculators, I'm sure) depend on Mt. Gox as a central hub for trade is convenient, but it introduces a focal point for abuse. Seriously, what did they expect?

7

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 22, 2011, 04:22:41 AM »

On the Peter Schiff interview the Bitcoing guy (Donald Norman) kept saying over & over that he wanted more regulation for Bitcoins.

You people using these things are going to get screwed in every possible way.

I heard this too. He's not the first bitcoin promoter begging for regulation, which is weird... these folks should know it's decentralized, and that regulating it will work as well as regulating torrents. I have to imagine most of these advocates are being deliberately misleading, in the hopes of making bitcoin go mainstream more quickly or something. Or perhaps some are just statists who bought in early and now want the govn't to somehow help protect their gains.

As far as dealing with thefts....

The entire bitcoin transaction chain is public, but it's not as "trackable" as that sounds. The way it works, even if you could follow "a bitcoin" through a hundred transactions and finally find an address that ties to a public identity, could you really go to just THAT person and demand compensation? And since the reality is that any given "single bitcoin" will get fractured and reassembled (with other coins) dozens of times through the course of those transactions, you'd likely be looking at dozens, if not hundreds of "recipients" of any stolen bitcoin.

Whether this is all a good thing or a bad thing is subjective. But considering one of the points of bitcoin is to have a near-cash-like level of anonymity, I think most in the bitcoin community aren't going to be too concerned about it. People lose cash. Thieves steal it. Same with bitcoins.

8

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 22, 2011, 03:37:55 AM »

Bitcoin would be a bad idea even if it were implemented well.
Unfortunately, however....


http://it.slashdot.org/story/11/06/17/141228/Trojan-Goes-After-Bitcoins

http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2247736&cid=36474542

I always thought that the actual money file was encrypted, and could have an arbitrary name. You know, like a truecrypt volume file. Then I find out it's by default a text file hanging out on your computer. Fine and dandy if you have 100% control over your computer at all times, but we all know that's never the case. And judging by the passwords people use, it will be easy to brute force most passwords.

Somehow, I think bitcoin is going to flame out in a rash of digital thievery when criminals realize that it is easier to steal someone's bitcoin file than it is to mine it or even look for credit card info.

This is just another example of why most folks shouldn't be dumping tons of money into bitcoins. The technology is still pretty new. For now, going to a local exchanger to send money should be enough for most folks. Anyone wanting to keep a few bitcoins should consider the free "online wallets" like https://instawallet.org or http://mybitcoin.com

9

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 14, 2011, 09:36:36 AM »

Anyone can answer this....

If I offered you the equivalent of $10,000.00 in either bitcoins or gold bullion, which one would you take?

Gold. Of all possible opportunities that size where gold was an option, I'd only hesitate if the choice was between gold and silver.

10

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 14, 2011, 09:29:18 AM »

For Wayne:

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?

First, thanks for your answers. You have verified my primary concerns to be true.

1. Odds are high that if there is a run on bitcoins, no one is gonna be buying them and you'll probably be fucked. A point I was repeatedly trying to get at.

Quite possible. I don't know how likely it is, or how likely it is to be long-term though... it's not as if the bitcoins will vanish, or lose their utility. And even if they drop to a few cents apiece, they can still be used to send money (if you didn't have enough at that point, you'd just have to acquire more to send.)

EDIT: I realize that this would probably be little comfort for someone who had a lot of $$$ in bitcoins sitting around.

2. The system can be abused but it is "expected" not to be. Mass abuse of the system will drive (Yes, with diminishing returns, I get it) the value of bitcoins up.

I guess I'm not sure what abuse you envision here. Market manipulations? People misusing bitcoin code on other's systems?

3. Botnets are possible. Transactions are a measurable factor in the system that is used to determine operation of the network. Transactions can be artificially inflated.

Well, I suppose bots could increase the number of transactions (until they ran out of bitcoins for transaction fees, anyway.) But I don't see what that would accomplish. More transactions doesn't mean more bitcoins generated. The system is setup so that, regardless of number of transactions, and regardless of number of miners, one transaction block is generated every 10 minutes. And throwing more processing power at it to try to generate the blocks more quickly only results in the security difficulty increasing so that the block rate falls back down to 1 every 10 minutes.

The number and value of bitcoins can be gamed. It is highly risky to buy bitcoins as an investment.

The value, quite possibly, although as the market expands that becomes harder and harder, since buys and sells is pretty much how one would accomplish that.

The number of bitcoins? Nope. (I'll come back to that below.)

So we're right back to what I've been saying from point one.

Transactions yes, investment no. You seem to agree:

I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Mostly.

I think MOST people shouldn't be trying to invest in it.

I would hope that MOST investments are something along the lines of buying enough to be able to satisfy cash-for-bitcoin exchanges, where money is made on the conversion fees, not the actual value of the bitcoins. Bitcoins are IMHO a poor long-term store of value.

I personally can understand some level of outright speculation, considering how much they've risen (and I feel they very well could rise much, much higher in price.) But I would hope only a few people are doing that, or that those who are are doing it with very little money, because there are so many unknowns here, and so much risk, that it's definitely NOT worth, say, sinking one's entire life savings into it (I'm sorry, but having seen that article where someone did that almost made me ill.) Not even a large fraction of one's savings, for that matter.

Now, back to your original question - "Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?"

I think the better question is "What happens when 21 million is reached?" and I think we both know that the answer, if bitcoin is still running, will be "The cap will be increased, just like any other fiat money." Setting an arbitrary number is just setting an arbitrary number. Artificial scarcity doesn't work.

Hmm.

You know, I jumped at the concept of bitcoins so quickly, and familiarized myself with how it works so soon afterwards, that I guess I didn't realize folks might doubt the rigidity of the 21-million-bitcoin cap.

The way the system is designed, the generation of extra bitcoins beyond the cap is so unbelievably unlikely, and so enormously impractical, that I personally deem it impossible. Again though, me just saying that probably isn't enough. Perhaps an analogy will help:

Suppose you're using torrents for years, and are familiar with how they work. Suppose that suddenly you hear of someone... could be Joe Shmoe, could be Bill Gates... announcing that they're going to release a new torrents client. They claim that it'll offer you faster download speeds initially, but admit that after a week you'll probably be down to speeds less than you get now, and that the speeds will continue to decline perpetually thereafter. Oh, and the client will be totally incompatible with current torrents.

Who would actually want to download such a thing? Would you? If you did, and found only a handful of other people using it, even long after a week into the release, what would be your first step? Would you find it reasonable to believe that a large portion of torrent users would jump on board?

Even if that, by some miracle DID happen, consider the incompatibility: assuming you kept your "normal" torrent client, how big of an impact do you think having a chunk of torrent users switch would have on you? A big enough impact for you to switch to the perpetually-slowing-down client, with a smaller user-base?

That's how it would be for someone to try to undercut the system by introduce a higher cap into the bitcoin protocol. Considering the number is hardwired into the clients (as well as the math of the system), that the clients are open-source, and that anyone who did try to break the cap would have their transactions rejected by everyone else, you'd have an easier time trying to get rich somehow by convincing the mass of casual computer users to switch from Windows to Linux. I just don't see it happening. I do see people trying Bitcoin 2, Localcoin, Inflate-a-coin, etc. But not affecting bitcoin in any significant way.

11

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 13, 2011, 03:14:17 AM »

Extremely complex number-crunching.

...  

But where do they come from? I am asking a very specific question here, and it leads to more questions.

There is vague talk of "Generating" bitcoins "Using unspent processor cycles."

What does this mean? Are we talking about the client processing data in exchange for currency created by the cloud?

The clients create new bitcoins.

Specifically, there are two kinds of clients: regular clients, and miners. The "official" releases of the bitcoin client allowed you to click a button to start mining, but nowadays most systems aren't setup with enough power to get any bitcoins doing that, so release 0.3.22 got rid of that button.

Miners process the transactions for the bitcoin network, and use encryption and hashing to secure each "block" of transactions. This requires a brute-force approach, so all the miners race to secure each block, and the first one (random, but influenced by number of hashes-per-second) is rewarded by being allowed to add in a transaction that gives itself 50 brand-new bitcoins.

The required level of security rises as more miners join the network, such that the number of new bitcoins created stays pretty much on-schedule, and all the miners wind up splitting them. The schedule, enforced by each client and each other miner, has the rate of bitcoin production slow to a crawl, pretty much petering out in 20 years. And just in case, there's an actual hard cap of 21 million bitcoins.

If so, why wouldn't I use the source code to make a virus that performs the same task but only for my bitcoin account? Or for that matter, why wouldn't I release a game, an app, a screensaver, whatever to do the same thing using the source code?

Or if we go "Legit", what about the IT guy who puts a client on every PC in an org?

Funny you should mention this. There's actually code out now so websites can "embed" mining... instead of showing ads, you visit the page, and your spare CPU cycles are used to crunch the bitcoin transaction blocks, trickling in bitcoin income for the webpage owner. It's expected that this is used responsibly, but it can always be turned off in the browser (and people can do this anyway for any purpose... it's not like bitcoin is responsible if someone DOES hijack your browser or even your system. A guy who starts mining for bitcoins on, say, company property without permission, is IMHO stealing, considering the amount of electricity usually required to crunch out bitcoins.)

It's open source, right? The source is there and if you aren't altering the primary mechanism what can anyone do about it? What is to stop a dude from setting up 500 accounts that do nothing but transfer bitcoins back and forth, creating the illusion of more transactions than there actually are? I mean, a motivated coder could probably design a single client that runs 1000 accounts at once, right?

That's call spamming in bitcoin terminology. This is dealt with by restricting the spending of small amounts, or of newly-received bitcoins. The "official" client requires a transaction fee for these cases. Other clients may not require a fee, but then you're pretty much going to be waiting a while for a miner to choose to process such transactions (miners get the transaction fees, so they're incentivized to process the transactions that pay fees first.)

You're not suggesting that open source developers can enforce some sort of control against abuse of the license, right? I mean you made very clear that no one can do anything about bitcoin and that it's pretty much unassailable from the networking standpoint.  

I forsee fifty billion altered but fully functional bitcoin accounts sitting someplace in China being a problem.

Not really. If they're too altered, they're just running their own, incompatible version of bitcoin. Chinacoin, if you will. If they're compatible enough that all other clients accept their transactions, then there's nothing they can do to harm the network.

As long as people want them and have FRNs or Silver or Gold to trade for them, then yes.

Lemme reiterate what I was trying to say -

If there is a run on Bitcoins, can I get them out before it devalues? Can I move it quickly. I don't care about the medium of exchange.

Not unless you have someone in your area who readily exchanges bitcoins for cash. That's a service I'm trying to provide in my area.

There are several services that facilitate such things and there can be many more.  It will depend on the market.  It appears to be growing and getting better every day which is why Bitcoins are shooting up in value.  Confidence in them is growing.  More services are being provided.  For instance there is service that let's you use Bitcoins to buy from anywhere online that accepts VISA.  There's an elaborate gambling site that uses Bitcoins.  There's no one entity that controls them.  Whomever out there wants to become a part of the trading "cloud" by starting to accept them will broaden the possibilities and impact the market.

I'm predicting them becoming more of a tool for black and gray markets because they are nigh impossible to control.  It would place them into something of a niche market (people distrustful of and willing to defy gubments) but I see that as a rapidly growing niche market.

Again, that wasn't the answer to my question.

I specifically want to know can I withdraw as quickly as I can put in? Are there withdraw limits?

Withdrawal limits? Not in the mechanics of the system, no. You can send as many bitcoins as you want to someone.

As far as who is exchanging cash for your bitcoins, I'm sure there will be a limit of some sort, unless you stumble across someone with a lot of disposable income who's wanting to get into the market, pronto. I personally wouldn't be able to handle more than several hundred dollars of trade at one time. Mt. Gox, probably the biggest exchange of USD, has withdrawal limits, though I'm not sure what those limits are; and, I'm thinking those limits apply to withdrawing their "Mt. Gox Dollars" out of their system into USD, not so much the cashing out of bitcoins into their MGD.

I'm not busting your balls here, but I just don't see how it's a good move to keep any money sitting there for more than minutes at a time, and if the services that provide for the edge of the network don't offer quick access and unlimited access to funds there's a major problem.

I suppose, depending on how many bitcoins you have, there might be a problem. Personally, except for people investing or speculating, or for businesses who don't mind accepting and holding onto bitcoins, I wouldn't recommend anyone keeping more than a couple hundred $$$ in bitcoins at any one time. SOME people, those who probably can't handle their own bitcoins (older folks, luddites, etc.) should probably only cash in as needed, to send money, and should cash out as soon as they receive a transfer.

Not to mention all of the software issues I see.

I was dubious at first, but now I am fairly certain that using Bitcoin would not be good for me as a medium of exchange and I won't be using it. If I, as a non programmer layperson (Sure, I'm a sharp cat, but I haven't written code since maybe 1990 or earlier) can see dozens of problems with this model then a real programmer would tear this thing apart and abuse the shit out of it.

And mind you, I haven't even gotten close to talking about the actual economics of it all.

This thing stinks of a ponzi scheme and I really really hope you don't end up getting fucked in the bad way.

I personally don't think it's even close to a ponzi. It's just someone's attempt at an anonymous, decentralized, unit-capped (i.e., inflation-proof) currency. If it takes off, it makes sense that early adopters are going to profit more than latecomers.

Just out of curiosity, how would you have recommended that the 21 million bitcoins have been initially distributed so that the system WOULDN'T be ponzi-like?

12

General / Re: Bitcoin

« on: June 11, 2011, 01:37:53 AM »

Bitcoin was never intended to be a long-term (or even mid-term) store of value. The misperception that that is it's best use is really causing some PR problems for bitcoin, and is going to get a lot of people burned.

The ideal use for bitcoin is as an anonymous, decentralized means of transferring money. That's it. But it's the best thing for that; so good that the feds are scared to death, and are trying to shut it down (good luck with that though.)

Trying to sell your friends onto bitcoins because of how much it's going up is to turn them into speculators. It might pan out, it might not. That's kinda risky.

Instead, just suggest that when your friends want to buy stuff online, they try to use bitcoins to do it. Privacy and all. Want to send money to a loved one across the country? Use bitcoins, and avoid those hefty transaction fees. Someone trying to leave the country, but not wanting to carry their gold with them? Convert the gold to bitcoins just before the trip, then upon arrival, immediately cash out in the local currency and buy more gold. It'll cost a little for the transaction fees and bitcoin price fluctuation, but it's better than not getting the gold across the border at all.

Transfer of value, folks, not store of value.

13

General / Re: Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

« on: January 19, 2010, 12:51:54 AM »

I'll help do that now, since I have a spare moment.  I will catalog our Assumptions and definition, our current Axiom and the outstanding issues.

The Draft Axiom :

Coercive force may only be applied to an individual incapable of consent only
when the direct resultant of the forcible action restores or grants the individual the capacity to consent.

This isn't a insurmountable issue for this axiom, but something I find interesting.

It basically gives everyone the right to force everyone else to keep their own capacity to consent intact.

Imagine it's 2050. An "instant-sober" pill has been developed. No matter how drunk you are, as long as your blood alcohol level isn't lethal, you can take this pill, and presto! You're completely sober and in total control of your faculties. Its as if you never took a drink.

How many times could I keep forcing the pill on someone who keeps running back to the bar and getting drunk? (And a related question kinda implied by the axiom in the first place: am I not in the right for doing so?)

14

General / Re: Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

« on: January 19, 2010, 12:41:19 AM »

Hmm.

I think there's only one legitimate way to go about this. And I suspect no one will like the outcome. But just hear me out....

Typically, what most of us believe to be rights are natural rights. We look at nature, see what makes sense, and apply it. For example, it makes sense that since man is biologically able to walk, and can exercise liberty in that area, that he has a right to do so (provided, of course, he doesn't infringe on the rights of others.) What this approach does is removes arbitrariness from the equation. You aren't just picking and choosing what sounds good. You're actually observing where the lines are naturally.

When this general approach toward determining rights is extended to children (or invalids) it seems like an unavoidable conclusion is reached. And that is, that you CAN'T directly extend the approach to such individuals.

This isn't to say such beings should be considered property like rocks or insects. But to treat a child/invalid as an fully-competent adult won't work. The results of doing so speak for themselves. In a very real sense, nature itself cries out that you need to adjust things for invalids. And so I submit the following for consideration as a natural law:

Guardians of invalids have the right to restrict any of the invalid's exercise of their rights, without being lethal in doing so, until the individual is no longer an invalid.

Yes, I know, there are questions. Who is a legitimate guardian? How do you determine when the individual is no longer an invalid? Etc., etc. But those are just quibbling details that can be dealt with later. The core concept, to me, seems perfectly sound. In fact, I don't see how one could argue otherwise in the face of the natural requirements for invalids.

Of course, this leads to some curious, even unexpected conclusions. This is where the whole you're-not-gonna-like-this bit comes in. But again, I'll stand by the claim that it's a non-arbitrary, naturally-derived law. Anything else seems to be starting with a desired outcome, regardless of how natural or right, and working backwards to form an axiom supporting it. (And is that really how we want to go about this?)

I'd address some of these unpopular conclusions, but it's late, and I'm pretty sure one or two will be brought up eventually, so I'll wait until then.

15

General / Re: Capacity to enter into a contact: A philosophy challenge

« on: January 18, 2010, 11:53:14 PM »

Oh, also, my last three political debates have been with PoliSci majors... So they are very detail oriented, much moreso than you'd think... I want to find liberty arguments so sound that a liberty loving schmoe off the street could easily convince a politician to believe in liberty... I believe that enough brainpower put into the communicative power of language can accomplish a whole lot...

OK.

I've had to think this over a bit to realize that essentially, yes, you are poking at the one true logical hole in the NAP.

While you start out addressing those unable to contract (which is what threw me for a loop), this is essentially the natural condition of children.

I think if the issue of aggression is "solved" for the case of children--however one chooses to define the term "children"--it will become pretty obvious the parallels needed to address the case of invalid adults.

Which figures, since juggling the NAP and the existence of toddlers is something most advocates of the NAP seem to (rather skillfully) dodge rather than address.

Anyway... I'll take a crack at it again soon.