Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I think there might be a few cases with debit type credit cards where your balance isn't checked immediately to validate the transaction, though I'd say these days that it must be pretty uncommon. I'm thinking of those old-fashioned imprint readers that you have to ratchet across the the card. Some taxis still use those here in Australia. Although my latest PayWave® Visa™ Debit card© doesn't even have raised numbers - so that wouldn't work.

Maybe I'm uninformed here, but are they saying they're not able to open a debit account? Surely that's a zero risk proposition for any bank (if overdraws are restricted), it's just pure interest for them on anything you keep in there (minus any interest you receive).

Or is it different in the US with your reliance on checks? Even if that's the case, surely checking could just be restricted, leaving you with either cash withdraws or paying by card, with instant electronic verification.

As to transaction fees. Over here in Oz, most transaction and saving accounts are monthly fee free. This is pretty new (as recently as several years ago you'd have a $5-10 monthly fee). Wonder if it's different in the states.

If they're not able to secure a loan, that's a different issue entirely. I don't see how an alternative banking system would help there.

"i admit my utter failure in expressing my position and decide to use someone i highly admire who could explain it better."

If your position is the same as Chomsky's, I understand that position. I have heard Chomsky talk about it repeatedly. (Here's a take on Chomsky by David Gordon with which I tend to agree).

"i want to understand why you choose your flavor of libertarianism."

If you want to understand my position, why send me Chomsky to explain YOUR position? Why not read what I sent you? Or what I've recommended that you read? Or simply respond to my comments?? This is NOT how you "understand" another position: by stating your own (or, someone else's, in this case, Chomsky's).

"which i dont because you never address the elephant in the room."

If the 'elephant' is all the conjectures you've seen about corporations/business taking over in evil ways, then I've already explained that those scenarios cannot happen under anarchy. That's not how business works in a government-free market.

"it appears to me your style of libertarianism is circa 1790."

I don't even know what this means...

"even Blankfist agreed that corporate power and influence MUST be restructured and possibly returned to temporary partnerships"

Let me restate it again then for you, since you seemed to have missed my position the first few times I've said it. Maybe I didn't say it enough times:

If you can do any of this, with no initiation of violence, zero, never initiating any physical violence against anyone's person or property, then I'm for it, whether you want to call it socialism, communism, anarchism, capitalism, whatever. But the requirement is zero initiation of violence. None. I don't know how you can have that with any form of syndicalism or socialism, unless everyone unanimously agrees on everything and that is quite rare. I doubt that it can happen except in the smallest groups, and even then, it's in specific and circumscribed ways. That is why a private property system is the only system that can ensure zero legal physical coercion/aggression against anyone's person and/or property. (Here's Rothbard's take on syndicalism. Worth reading.)

"like that the system will ultimately begin to cannibalize itself when growth becomes stagnant?"

This cannot/will not happen in a free market. Only when aggression is introduced could this happen.

"that unfettered capitalism will lay waste to everything"

Unfettered voluntary exchanges will never lay waste to anything. Do you understand how absurd this sounds to me? You are proposing the replacement of voluntary exchanges with coercion. Yes, you are -- because I have been clear that capitalism, as I am defining it, means free, voluntary exchanges. I don't care what corporations do as long as they engage in voluntary transactions providing goods and services that consumers want. Only through government-granted privileges -- enforced through violence -- can corporations do otherwise. There are no "natural monopolies." There have never been. Ever.

Even after watching the video, there is nothing there which "proves" that there is such a thing a "natural monopoly" or that "proves" that aggression is better than non-aggression. Is there?
But like I said, if you can show how to do any of what you'd propose with zero aggression, then I'm for it.

"you are not the person i gave you credit for."

Bad thymology, then, apparently.

"i made certain assumptions about you based an very little."

Similar to making all sorts of assumptions about corporations and the free market based on very little evidence.

"i was never trying to say you were wrong"

Really? What were you saying then??

"i just wanted to understand why you believe the things you believe."

Then, instead of insulting me or trying to shame or coerce me (what's with this posting "for Trancey"?! What?!), you could simply ask me polite questions, instead of ones like, "do you even know this or that"? No dice.

And instead of just telling me what "thou believe" or not. Is this about understanding my view or about you telling me what you believe or dictating what I ought to believe?

"is the corporate tyranny not as evident to you"

No. How is Apple tyrannizing you?
They haven't tyrannized me. Not one iota. In fact, they have provided my friends with some useful goods, for which they have gladly given them several thousands of dollars.

If you have a specific grievance against a specific company, let me know, and I can point out to you what your remedy could be. Any grievance that does not involve a government.

I wouldn't particularly appreciate you (or anyone) trying to interfere, through violence or the threat thereof, in any voluntary non-aggressive exchanges I choose to engage in, whether I do so as an individual or as a group, even as a group where we choose to call ourselves a corporation. And if our group does or does not want to structure itself as a syndicate, what business is it of yours?

Call me 1790 or whatever, but I don't really consider someone who'd want to impose their will on me like that a bonafide 'anarchist' despite what they choose to call themselves. I know, that's just my choice. I am not preventing you from calling yourself whatever you want. Just don't expect me to agree.

Actually, 99% of human behavior is entirely anarchic. I make millions of large and small transactions with other humans on a daily basis which have absolutely zero government involvement, whatsoever. Billions of other people on the planet do the exact same thing. Daily. Government is a fiction by which some people live at the expense of everyone else.

Even Somalia, as you may have seen, grew and improved on almost all counts after the government collapsed, built more roads and infrastructure during its 20 years without government than it did with the government.

What we have now, with a centralized government, is (because people, let alone government, is far from omniscient) more of a "planned chaos," by which little to nothing is fully known as to the long term of effects of anything that the government imposes. At least, without government, we work within natural laws and an emergent order. Instead, what we have now is "positive laws" (imposed by governments) which regulate some people at the expense of the many, while benefiting a very few.

And I think you should learn your history before you suggest that "might-makes-right" argument has shaped the arc of civilization. One cannot make the honest case that government is not behind the worst, most egregious crimes against humanity known to man, with its ability to generate unlimited money to spend on mobilizing huge military empires so "the people's" proxy can drone foreigners to death, or lock them up in Guantanamo or anywhere else, or spy on all their communications, or make them all poor though inflation, or regulate their existence to the most minute detail, or provide them with bad healthcare or any number of other things that government can do.

Not me. I'm joining the billions of people throughout history (from the Puritans, to the American Revolutionaries, to the millions of emigrants via Ellis Island, to millions of refugees, to all those air lifted from Saigon, to all those Americans whose relatives fled from China, Korea, Vietnam, Iran, or anyplace where there's war, or famine, or economic devastation) who decided to opt out of government, and to voluntarily exit the charade.


"But, hey, if you like your government, you can keep it."

Standard SSL uses 2048byte key size. It's a standard key size considered to be secure enough for commercial and financial transactions.
However it takes no effort for them to use 16kb key size and implement 100 million key transformation cycles.
No amount of GPUs in the world will be able to bruteforce that kind of encryption. Not even NSA.

Uhmm.. Isn't this just another way of making money? If everyone want to sell you the aluminum and you mark it up.. thats how things work. In any and all instances where a company lives off small transactions from many (millions) of people, even a penny increase per product or service brings in money like this. And it is done every day! If you think you can do better and cheaper, buy the aluminum before it reaches GS and sell it cheaper. Drive down that cost and make it no longer worth it for GS.

What I want to know is what is GS's costs for maintaining this round robin approach to storage and transportation.

Wait, I thought the stock scandal was because elected officials could do insider trading and it wasn't illegal. It was always illegal for the staff members.

What I hear in this is that the on-line database of personal stock transactions is being repealed for the staffers. The database will be there for the elected officials.

And it is still illegal to do insider trader for elected officials -- which is the real disgusting thing which the stock act took care of.

Unless I don't understand something?

As I see it, Bitcoin has use in:

-fast, low-cost electronic (not face-to-face) transactions
-transactions frowned upon or outlawed by governments or other sufficiently powerful entities.

It isn't like government currency, although it can be used for many of the same things.

They have "value" the same way all currencies have "value", in that they are a reliable way to determine if somebody else has stored value in the currency market in question.

Calling them "coins" is probably confusing, people don't have bitcoins, people have bitcoin accounts, which you can make as many of as you wish, but new bitcoin accounts are always empty.

To get "coins" the central p2p accounting ledger called the block-chain has to show that some other account transferred coins to your account, that transfer log has to go all the way back to coins generating through mining.

The specifics of how the accounting is verified is some very cool crypto, but suffice it to say it is functionally impossible to forge bitcoin transactions.

mined coins do not stop until 2140, but the rate of mining is defined by the protocol in such a way that it drops by 50% every 210,000 cycles, so it asymptotically approaches 21Mil.

The "useful" thing that the system is calculating is actually the bookkeeping for the entire network.

Machines that mine are the accountants/auditors for the network, and the mined coins are their probabilistic payment for bootstrapping the economy.

As the mining reward drops low it becomes needful for the mining machines to generate revenue through transaction fees, which people can elect to pay to prioritize their transactions over people who don't elect to add fees to their transaction.

And this is why it'll keep going this way...

They knew (just like most MMO or server based games do) that there was demand and completely failed to meet it, then dropped key features like cheetah speed to try and play catch up...

As for F2P with microtransactions, no, it's not worse. It's far superior depending on the transaction model. I get to play the game and if I enjoy it, I can plonk down as much dosh as I wish to. With Simcity, they just couldn't play the game they paid for. Yay...

Nevermind if you want to while away the hours on a flight playing a bit of Simcity, or if your internet drops out for the evening. Just because most people can be connected all the time doesn't mean they always are. If you want to play it single player and miss out the regional stuff, why shouldn't you be able to?

And let's not even get started on stuff like tiny city sizes, broken mechanics like miniscule employment rates in high population cities causing your retail sector to collapse, fire stations ignoring calls from places next door merrily burning away, no undo, lost cities due to the cloud save fucking up etc...

You want to bend over and let them take advantage of you sans lube, go nuts, but every time you do you let them know it's okay to try it on with everyone else.

@Yogi Way to miss the point. I wasn't comparing cars and guns, I was comparing laws regulating cars and guns. That's all I'm going to say to you. You've already told me in another discussion that you're going to refuse any evidence that doesn't agree with your narrow minded beliefs, so having a discussion with you is pointless.

@RedSky

1) I'm not implying that the US is more violent. I already pointed out that the US has lower violent crime rates than the US and UK despite the higher murder rate.


2) I'd say people in rural areas are most likely own guns for hunting and also self defense as there are no police patrols out in the country.

I also wouldn't blame the availability of guns to criminals on gun enthusiasts. Criminals generally don't legally buy their guns. One way to cut down on illegall gun sales is to charge the sellers as accomplices to the crimes committed with the weapons they sell illegally.


3) Maybe punishment was not the right word I should have chosen. My point is that to cut down on driving fatalities, the laws enacted didn't put any inconveniences on responsible drivers.

Your back of the envelope calculation isn't quite so clear cut. Sam Harris discusses this in his article.

It is also worth noting that relatively gun-free countries are not as peaceful as many think. Here are some recent crime data comparing the U.S., the U.K., Australia, and Sweden. Although the U.S. has a higher rate of homicide, the problem of assaults in these other countries is much worse...

So, while the U.S. has many more murders, the U.K., Australia, and Sweden have much higher levels of assault. One might think that having a few more murders per 100,000 persons each year is still much worse than having many hundreds more assaults. Perhaps it is. (One could also argue, as several readers have, that differences in proportion are all we should care about.) But there should be no doubt that the term “assault” often conceals some extraordinary instances of physical and psychological suffering.

It's possible that the reason the US has lower assault, robbery and rape is that armed citizens are able to defend themselves from such crimes.

I'm seeing a lot of people saying the US should look to the UK and Australia on how to handle gun control. Both UK and Australia already had low murder and violent crime rates at the time of their "bans." After Australia's National Firearms Act and forced gun buyback, homicide fell by 9%, but assault went up 40% and rape went up 20%. In the years before the NFA, homicides had been on a steady decline, and a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found the NFA's impact on homicide was "relatively small."

After the UK's "gun ban" in 1997, gun crime actually increased [1] [2]. Gun crimes in 1997-1998 were 2,648. The Office for National Statistics shows that 5,507 firearm offenses were reported 2011-2012.


4) Yes cars do provide a benefit to society. Their regulation and restrictions are reasonable, and I already said I'm not opposed to any reasonable gun laws. But cars are the leading cause of accidental death each year. There are lots of things that can be done to make cars and drivers safer. Cars could be limited to 70 MPH. The national speed limit on highways is 70 MPH, why do you need a car capable of going faster? Cars can be fitted with a GPS and a "black box" that records your driving activities. Each year when you renew your inspection, the black box data is downloaded and analyzed. If it's discovered you've broken any traffic laws, you will be fined, and if it's determined you aren't a safe driver, your license is revoked. Prohibit personal sales of vehicles between individuals, because you can't know if the person your selling to is a safe driver or if their license is valid (see below about the "gun show exemption"). Sounds crazy, but those aren't nearly as bad as some of the things being proposed for new gun laws.

I doubt any of those would be acceptable to the majority of drivers, but it would make driving safer and save lives.

As for your suggestions "not yet tried."

- We already have rigorous background checks for purchasing firearms. They're done by the FBI's NICS, I don't know how it can be more rigorous.
- There is no "gun show exemption" or "loophole," that is more media buzzword BS. Private sale and transfer of anything (not just firearms) can not regulated by congress. It's another constitutional issue dealing with the regulation of commerce. It is still illegal for a person to sell a firearm to someone that they have reason to believe may not be legally able to own one. This is another issue that I'm not opposed to fixing though. It could be as simple as requiring the transaction to be witnessed by a licensed gun dealer and perform a background check.
- Assault weapons are already restricted. Real assault weapons that is, not what the media and lawmakers keep calling assault weapons. Once again I ask, why such fuss over the weapon type least used in crime? These "assault weapons" are expensive to acquire, and most criminals go for cheap, small caliber, concealable pistols and revolvers. [source] For more on what an assault weapon is and their use in crime, just head on over to this Wikipedia page.
- Restricting ammunition would be something that would effect responsible gun owners and likely have little effect on crime. Responsible gun owners are the ones that buy more ammo, go to gun ranges and practice.


5) You mean the steadily high murder rate that has been steadily declining for over two decades, by 50% since 1992? [source]

I find this whole discussion fascinating. First, I would like to point out that my original reaction was to the statement "This is why you have an obesity problem, America.". I highly doubt that it is just because of a drive-through ATMs and I find that statement too flippant. I am in Canada, and I think we have an obesity problem, too, just probably not as bad as the folks down south. I think the core problem is diet and exercise.

Second, and again speaking only for Edmonton, Alberta, there aren't hundreds of these things around. I know of 2 drive-through ATMs in the whole south-west area of the city, and they are specifically at the large bank branches. They exist, there just aren't everywhere. The only people probably using them are folks that bank at that bank.

Third, as charliem mentioned, we also have hundreds of these mini-ATMs around everywhere. They are very convenient, but they come with a $1-3 transaction fee on top. Most of my transactions are with credit/debit cards, so cash is pretty rare. When I need it, I don't feel like handing out extra monies to 3rd parties. If I need some cash I will probably go to the bank near my house that has this drive-through. I doubt parking my car and going inside to the ATM will help me lose weight

The other aspect of forced Union membership that bothers me is the interference it places on the individual's rights for free trade and commerce. If I want to trade 3 pigs for a wagon that my neighbor has, and we both agree it's a square deal, then we should be allowed to transact. If the neighboring farmers nix our deal, because they think their pigs are worth 2 to a wagon, then they should be the ones to go find the market that suits their estimate of value.

The older I get, the more I have come to understand that porn is toxic to the human spirit. To be clear, I'm not talking about public sexuality, erotica, erotic themes in fiction or the appreciation of a nude human body. I'm talking about hardcore porn, which reduces one of the most beautiful forms of human interaction to a cheap, crude, exploitive and loveless financial transaction. I used to watch plenty of porn. Now I find it incredibly depressing.