321–330 of 386 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
LOL its like asking victim to prove why attacker should not attack him. The onus is NOT on victim but the attacker. Its the attacker who made the first contact. Its the attacker who has to prove from the mutually agreed upon set of axioms.
To be honest I'm really not following your position here. Who is the victim and who is the attacker, and how does that respond to my point?
> how does that respond to my point?
You just asked an individual to justify why its not okey for govt/people to interfere between two consenting adults.
But then I think the debate would turn into battle of axioms which is pointless.
The question should be, can/how would people with contradictory political axioms co-exist ? I think its not possible, people can only vote with feet and hope for best. Political debate is not an intellectual debate like scientific/programming debate but war with real losses and HN now is a battlefield.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we'll begin to find out how regulation-resistant it is over the next few years... And no, we don't relate on that, and we disagree that the effect is limited to the individual (see "the Great Depression, causes of") or that the individual should have to bear all risk of their actions at all times. Fundamentally I suspect we disagree on what sort of society we want to live in.
It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space. We also disagree on the economic cause…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are token sales that are not scams. This whole discussion would be much easier with an example. I have spent quite a lot of time debating cryptocurrencies with people and explaining why they could be useful. But with ICOs I find myself on the other side of the fence. I have yet to find a white paper that isn't either useless or impossible. > and thus doesn't meet securities regulations In this context "doesn'…
BAT and FunFair are neither impossible nor useless. >I'm not sure that's a good idea. But if someone thinks it's a good idea, we should forcibly deny them the right to invest their own money in it? I simply don't understand the justification for such a strong-arming intrusion. >It is impossible to be serious in a space dominated by liars as they will outcompete you every time. Reputation is a very real and powerful t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may be regulation resistant or it may prove to not be. But the point is people go into it with the expectation that it is designed to try to achieve this property, and they're free to avoid any perceived risks of a regulation resistant industry by remaining in the traditional financial market. This greatly reduces the moral justification of imposing regulations on this space. We also disagree on the economic cause…
I think we also disagree on what "freely" might mean.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We tried libertarianism. It doesn't work. I realize the futility of trying to explain this to someone with the username "rothbardrand" but I used to be a libertarian and I finally broke out of it, so maybe this will give someone else teetering on the edge some things to think about. 1. Libertarianism sweeps negative externalities under the rug. Air quality, noise pollution, the costs to society when an elderly person…
It's interesting that you give Switzerland as an example since many would regard it as the most libertarian country today. Could you imagine this [2] happening in the US? Public spending to GDP ratio [1]: Sweden 51 US 42 Canada 42 Switzerland 34 When the Swedish welfare state has collapsed (I'm Swedish, and it's not looking good) you are welcome back to the small government camp :). No 1 is a good argument against li…
The US overspends on its military and mismanages its spending on healthcare. If Sweden's welfare / education / state has collapsed since I lasted checked it out, I'll update my views, but I certainly haven't seen rising illiteracy or poverty like we see in the US.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think we also disagree on what "freely" might mean.
Make decisions for your own life? I would hope we could at least agree on the definition of common words and this wouldn't become a definition wack-a-mole.
Is BSD more free because it places no restrictions, or is the GPL more free because it guarantees freedom to those further on in the chain?
I'm not going to attempt an answer because it's the stuff of decades of internet flamewars. Similarly I don't think that libertarian freedoms are necessarily the only definitions, particularly as they seem to enshrine ownership of land and property as absolute, which come at a cost to the freedoms of others to make use of land or possessions. (I'm not looking for a debate on why that may or may not be right or wrong, simply to establish that what makes someone or something the most free is not 100% clear cut)
So no, we can't really agree on a definition of free or freely.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I buy bread from a farmer's market some weekends. It's made by one guy in his home kitchen who isn't accredited or regulated in any way. By your approximation I should be dead by now. The salient point is that it's my human right to associate with whomever I please.
Your experience at the farmer's market is surely equivalent to what most people would experience in Walmart. Many humans will do anything it takes to make a profit and not care about who they are screwing over. If you think that's okay that's fine, but then go to Somalia and see how a lawless country works in practice. Food safety in particular was mandated by populae request. I cannot wrap my head around free market…
There is no chance that supermarket shelves would be stocked with toxic/fraudulent food products in our world of secure private property rights, with or withouy food safety regulations. There is an elaborate chain of private interests involved in food production/distribution that would self-organize to prevent such an outcome. McDonalds uses higher standards for its beef than the USDA for example. Automobile manufacturers have higher safety standards than regulations require.
>>That's just bullshit. You are a religious cult at this point.
I recommend some introspection.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8c
You didn't make a point, sorry.
le·git·i·mate adjective adjective: legitimate ləˈjidəmət/ 1. conforming to the law or to rules. "his claims to legitimate authority"
so, it's great to have a learned opinion on filecoin's tech, but its irrelevant to the discussion of whether filecoin is a legitimate business
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make decisions for your own life? I would hope we could at least agree on the definition of common words and this wouldn't become a definition wack-a-mole.
I think that's both naive and wishful thinking. Like a BSD vs GPL argument, one can have many definitions of what constitutes freedom. Is BSD more free because it places no restrictions, or is the GPL more free because it guarantees freedom to those further on in the chain? I'm not going to attempt an answer because it's the stuff of decades of internet flamewars. Similarly I don't think that libertarian freedoms are…
I don't feel this discussion can proceed constructively anymore.