gmane.comp.finance.gold-silver-crypto

[gsc] Re: Is a free society practical?

2008-12-05T04:42:35

Raven Escrow writes: Well, yes. But it is not up to you or me. To the extent that "institut[ing] #1" depends on convincing people (which I think is your position altho I disagree) then one of the main difficulties facing you is that most people (like Robert) don't think it would be either perfect or permanent. Convincing them that does not matter seems to be a hard sell. I'm already sold. Best, Craig ------------------------------------------------------ - Virtual Phonecards - Instant Pin by Email - - Large Selection - Great Rates - - http://speedypin.com/?aff=743&co_branded=1 - ------------------------------------------------------ ************************************** * * * Craig Spencer * * ccspencer-tORamrTw2pXk1uMJSBkQmQ< at >public.gmane.org * * * **************************************

Re: [gsc] Various Queens, Barking In My Ear

Raven Escrow — 2008-12-05T03:32:58

OMG, RAH, I didn't think anyone else in the world remembered Mahogany Rush and Frank Marino! Dude could play! Raven On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:40 PM, R.A. Hettinga public.gmane.org> wrote:

Re: [gsc] Is a free society practical?

Raven Escrow — 2008-12-05T03:29:05

#2 is certainly an issue, but that's no reason not to institute #1. There is a gap between the two, yielding X years of "massively better," slowly declining to "the same thing as before we started." I'd enjoy those X years. There is also the issue of dealing with #2. I think it can be solved by the same thing that solves everything else - a free market. But, Robert does have a reason for his argument and I could be wrong. Perhaps Jefferson was right, and we will always need a rebellion every so often. If so, that's still better than abandoning #1 because it is neither perfect or permanent. IMHO, anyway. Raven On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 7:27 PM, public.gmane.org> wrote:

[gsc] Parex Bank taken over by Latvian Government

Graham Kelly — 2008-12-05T02:51:20

Folks, http://latviaeconomy.blogspot.com/2008/11/latvian-government-nationalises.html GK --------------------------------------------- www DOT GoldNow DOT St US +1 (213) 341-1583 CA +1 (418) 210-3942 UK +44 (0) 208 1506659 IE +353 (0) 766153669 AU +61 (0) 3 9017-1975 NZ +64 (0) 9 974-2009 US Fax +1 (213) 559-8555 Skype 'goldnow'

[gsc] Various Queens, Barking In My Ear

R.A. Hettinga — 2008-12-05T01:40:16

On Dec 4, 2008, at 9:00 PM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: We *were* talking about Barney Frank. The Red Queen of Banking. And how ABBA and Shanklin parodying him singing same are so... perfect together. :-) My current taste in music has pretty much been deluged by an ocean of ubiquitous torrent-music. It's trying to drown-proof itself out there now, bobbing up and down for breath somewhere between "Gimme Back My Bullets" and "The Engulfed Cathedral". Or the "Revolutionary" etude. Or Bach's Prelude & Fugue XVI in G minor (BWV885). Or West End Blues. Or Lowell George singing about a fat man in a bathtub. Or Frank Moreno doing Purple Haze. Or Seal and Jeff Beck doing Manic Depression. Or Malmsteen doing Paganini. Or Eddie doing Eruption. Or Satch. Or Morse. Or Jaco. Or DiMeola. Or something. First you download everything you wish you had but couldn't afford as a teen-ager noodling a cheap guitar in front of the TV instead of doing your homework -- much less working to buy albums. Then yo

[gsc] Is a free society practical?

2008-12-05T01:27:43

Raven Escrow writes: I think there are two different issues: (1) Is it conceptually possible to have a private, non-monopoly legal system or is the very idea some sort of logical contradiction? (2) What are the human incentives, common behavior and likely historical evolution under such a system? You are answering the first question: yes, it is possible and no, it is not self-inconsistent. Robert was addressing the second question in a mostly thoughtful way mixed in with some nonsense. He was arguing that it would inevitably evolve into something like what we have now. His point (minus the inessential nonsense) is a serious issue. If you ever wanted to actually have item (1) you need to face up to item (2). Best, CCS ------------------------------------------------------ - Virtual Phonecards - Instant Pin by Email - - Large Selection - Great Rates - - http://speedypin.com/?aff=743&co_branded=1 - ----------------------------------------------------

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Raven Escrow — 2008-12-05T01:11:31

arbitration, there's no reason why it can't be completely private. Absa-freekin-lootely!! And competitive.

Re: [gsc] Banking Queen on YouTube?

Patrick Chkoreff — 2008-12-05T01:00:15

R.A. Hettinga wrote, On 12/04/2008 07:50 PM: Hey dude, we're talking about *pop* here, remember? You wanna talk about Who and Kinks, have at it. Just change the subject header.

[gsc] Video: Miles of trash piles

unlinQ Marketing — 2008-12-05T01:00:10

Video: Miles of trash piles Dec. 2: Ms. Information: Rachel Maddow reports on some stories that didn't make the front page, including how miles and miles of trash are still piled on the Texas coast months after Hurricane Ike hit. (MSNBC)

Re: [gsc] Banking Queen on YouTube?

R.A. Hettinga — 2008-12-05T00:50:40

On Dec 4, 2008, at 8:45 PM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: Cheers, RAH

Re: [gsc] Banking Queen on YouTube?

Patrick Chkoreff — 2008-12-05T00:45:11

Patrick Chkoreff wrote, On 12/04/2008 06:06 PM: Oh darn, I just thought of something. Bee Gees. You got a nominee?

Re: [gsc] Solar Korner

unlinQ Marketing — 2008-12-05T00:21:10

As much as most, I appreciate alternative energy advances. It seems however, current and immediate economics play a more important role than technology. Until the life-cycle costs of carbon- and nuclear-based energy sources are fully appreciated and taken to heart and 'forced' into the current decision making climate it may a cold winter in the tropics before we see these alternatives become dominant.

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Patrick Chkoreff — 2008-12-05T00:17:46

Bill St. Clair wrote, On 12/04/2008 06:17 PM: You are far too sensible for this list, Bill. ;)

[gsc] Re: zero aggression catchphrase...

2008-12-04T23:53:29

Patrick Chkoreff writes: Fiddlesticks, yes. But there is nothing logical about it. Just dishonest anti-conceptual skepticism. Best, CCS ------------------------------------------------------ - Virtual Phonecards - Instant Pin by Email - - Large Selection - Great Rates - - http://speedypin.com/?aff=743&co_branded=1 - ------------------------------------------------------ ************************************** * * * Craig Spencer * * ccspencer-tORamrTw2pXk1uMJSBkQmQ< at >public.gmane.org * * * **************************************

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Bill St. Clair — 2008-12-04T23:17:35

I'll take a stab at it, using the first person. 1) My body is my property 2) Anything I find lying around that is not already somebody else's property is my property if I say it is. That includes areas of land. 3) Anything that was once the property of somebody else but which that person voluntarily gave to me is now my property, not the other person's. 4) Anything that was once my property but that I voluntarily gave to somebody else is now that person's property, not mine. 5) Only sentient beings can have property. Non-sentient beings can BE property. I'm not going to attempt to define sentience here. That's about it. Doesn't account for intellectual property because that's so hard to define, and I'm not entirely sure I believe in it. It also doesn't deal with property owned by voluntary associations. Not too hard to define, but adds complications. -Bill

Re: [gsc] Spends resuming at e-gold

Adam Selene — 2008-12-04T23:14:32

I don't see how any merchant can return with spend limits in place on their accounts. A deposit/withdraw style merchant, impossible; a days turn-over will lock the account for the month. A purchase-only style merchant, may work for $1 widgets, but it they're selling larger ticket items or services, a few refunds will again lock the account for the month. Omnipay comes back online, and you'll see real spend activity -- totally liquidation of e-gold. Adam

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Patrick Chkoreff — 2008-12-04T23:10:50

jpm-CxQ5nL2hqNn/vYVTsPC8+iWTkRzJkiQl< at >public.gmane.org wrote, On 12/04/2008 05:35 PM: Yeah yeah yeah. More Bertrand Russell style logical fiddlesticks. I know what's my property. I know what's not. I have a general idea how to distinguish the two, with which I won't bore you. I don't take other people's stuff, I don't attack them, I don't walk into their living rooms uninvited. Go and do thou likewise.

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Chris Brunner — 2008-12-04T23:07:46

To clarify, I meant to say that there are plenty of *private* organizations that specialize in dispute resolution. So long as there isn't a government around to enforce a monopoly on arbitration, there's no reason why it can't be completely private. Chris

Re: [gsc] Banking Queen on YouTube?

Patrick Chkoreff — 2008-12-04T23:06:00

R.A. Hettinga wrote, On 12/04/2008 06:01 PM: Well, I count the Beatles in a different class.

Re: [gsc] Banking Queen on YouTube?

R.A. Hettinga — 2008-12-04T23:01:57

On Dec 4, 2008, at 6:05 PM, Patrick Chkoreff wrote: Proof that you're only right about *some* things. :-) Cheers, RAH Thank god it happened in Sweden first, so we had time to duck and cover...

Re: [gsc] zero aggression catchphrase...

Chris Brunner — 2008-12-04T23:00:18

Hi all... this is my first post. I'm not sure if it's the custom here to introduce yourself before you start posting, or not, but here it goes... I'm Chris Brunner, and I'm a technology consultant and programmer by trade. I'm also a libertarian anarcho-capitalist. On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 3:17 AM, Robert dCZ public.gmane.org> wrote: This is utter nonsense because it's based on the assumption that there must be a monopoly on arbitration, which is ridiculous. There are plenty of organizations that specialize in dispute resolution. When two people enter into a contract, they could easily agree to use a particular arbitration organization should a dispute arise. The "decider" can be selected voluntarily and does not need the support of anyone except for the people entering into a contract. This is a pathetic argument for government. Cheers, Chris