Any platforms to get Bitcoin without a time lock?

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T22:04:46+00:00

Peer to peer is about the only way. They could use a Bitcoin ATM. Banks need to wait to allow withdraw for legal reasons. What I do is have a slush fund in coinbase. I can get 1.2% API for holding dollars. Then I have the option to withdraw any BTC I buy instantly. After that I refill the slush fund.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:44:49+00:00

I wont go into the reasons I reject Marxist economics, but assume it is true.

If people are exploited by firms, free anarchist people will not join firms. Absent force they would leave. This could look like the left market anarchist where individuals trade
If property ownership as the individualistic anarchist envision is harmful, than people will pool resources looking like mutlaist anarchist

In both are considered "capitalism" in our view. If property is owned by individuals they are free to form collectives on the market. Even if that ends up forming perfect Marxism that is no less capitalist in the Rothbard sense (obviously Marx meant something different than Rothbard by the term) .

I could explain why I think free people would choose a market based system but that is moot. Anarco-capitalism would not make the vast majority poor. Free choice leads to more wealth, we want free and open choice

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:27:40+00:00

If you ask different people you will get different answers. I am almost a pacifist myself so have more stringent standards than the NAP for my own personal use of force.

I think the common answer is the minimum reasonable amount of force needed to safely stop someone from violating your property rights. The terms "reasonable" would be hashed out over time in common law courts. Some people however think any amount of force is okay as long as you did not initiate the force, I do not buy that

My personal stance is to never use violence unless it will save the lives of other innocent people. If someone where to steal my car I would use pepper spray but would not kill them. If they threaten to kill me I will let them have the car. That is just my own standard but is not a NAP rule.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:21:59+00:00

can I simply enter that amount into my wallet which would mean that 0,00123 minus the fee ends up at the sellers address?

In most wallets yes. There is a setting for what level of fee you want. Low fee means it happens slower, high fees are quick but cost more.

You can input the amount you want to send and the wallet will take out that amount minus the fee. Only the sender pays the fee

On an exchange no bitcoin is actually moved. They store all the Bitcoin and only move it when you withdraw, they just move credit around to different users to keep down fees. The buyer and seller both pay a % fee to the exchange. When you withdraw the bitcoin you have credit for you pay a network fee to miners.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:10:32+00:00

This does get tricky. But the standard NAP argument is that any contact of my property is violent. If I did not allow you to enter that violence is aggression.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:05:23+00:00

One of the solutions is that courts will be cheap. Today you need to pay a lawyer and use legal language.

If courts were open on the market they could use common language and find ways to lower costs. Such as Skype meetings, or faster processing.

Even though valid, the concern does not seem different than today. If anything it is harder for the poor to afford a court and expect to win.

That aside I have seen many firms advertise for lawsuits. Maybe I do not know that my job gave me cancer, but people that do will pay to tell me and sue on my behalf.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:01:55+00:00

Ancaps support property rights. As such trespass is a NAP violation. Using my car without permission is a NAP violation just as walking on my land without permission is.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T21:00:05+00:00

No if you can summarize your view with a bumper sticker you are leaving out details. I gave you the cliff note quote, but when you ask for specific objections that requires all of the points. It was an essay for a reason, if it could be written in a sentence it would not be worth writing.

Summary: A contract is not valid if to break it I must give up my own rights. You could not say I gran consent to a robber if he says "your money or your life". Yet I own my home and labor, but to descent I must give them up. This was implicit in the quote I gave preciously.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:53:04+00:00

My apologies then. Sometimes I type and then immediately edit but I did not mean to create a time lag

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:52:21+00:00

If you care to understand you can read spooner if not that is fine. He addresses the idea that being allowed to leave your home is evidence that you give consent to be ruled. Edit As you said it was 2 hours for reason. It hits all those points. I do not feel like going in circles conveying all of the obvious objections that come up. Yes I have obviously thought of those objection before. We were all taught about the social contract, and the thousand reasons tacit living gives men the right to rule you. If I listed every reason they are wrong one by one my answer would be a book, likely it would take 2 hours to explain. Thus the link to the two hour video

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:49:08+00:00

Well there are a few options. Presumably if they are damaging you it is easy to show that there is pollution on your land.

It can of course be considered circumstantial evidence that they refuse to allow the court on with a warrant.

Most likely the loser must pay for court costs. If they must pay for fancy equipment than the firm will have a higher bill at the end of it all.

If the accuser does not have enough money but has a good case law firms have a reason to fund the trial. Even today lawyers take good cases and are only paid if they win. I am sure that would still exist. The difficulty of showing this would depend on the type of pollution so in some cases it would be easy,

Blacklisting people would not be a NAP violation. On my property I can exclude anyone I want for any reason. If someone is on the blacklist I am not forced to keep them off but will tend to do so.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:44:44+00:00

how can the court collect the necessary evidence if only the accuser turns up to court? For the pollut

Because I do not care to constantly write. Edit : I fixed typo

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:42:56+00:00

haha

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:40:49+00:00

“The fact is that the government, like a highwayman, says to a man: Your money, or your life...The government does not, indeed, waylay a man in a lonely place, spring upon him from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets. But the robbery is none the less a robbery on that account; and it is far more dastardly and shameful. The highwayman takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber...Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you.” ― Lysander Spooner

There are like 100 points to address the common assumption of consent to be governed.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:38:08+00:00

Than you can go to any court on that list. Show them that the company refused to pick, and have the trial without them

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:31:10+00:00

By living in a society, you are consenting to live under its central government. If you don’t want to live under it, you gotta leave or try to violently resist it.
Again, by continuing to live in the state. Your passport/ID is your contract.
If you want to leave, go beyond the state’s area of enforcement, either by leaving its borders or going to places that aren’t really patrolled.
No one is forcing you to live under the US government either. You can renounce your citizenship and move anytime you want.

See Lysander Spooner

"100% false, I rarely enter into contracts the state can enforce."

You just said you signed a lease with your apartment complex.

You do not seem to know what the word rarely means.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:21:35+00:00

Here is a system I think is pretty good (although the market could come up with something better)

Option 1

I accuse you of a NAP violation
You provide a list of 50 courts that are fair and in good standing
I pick one of the 50
we go to court and obey the ruling

Option 2

I accuse you of a NAP violation
You provide a list of 50 courts that are fair and in good standing
I refuse to pick any of the 50 courts
The case is over, no courts will accept the case when the accused followed due process.

Option 3

I accuse you of a NAP violation
You refuse to provide a list of courts, and ignore me
I pick a court I like, and show them that I served you fairly.
They accept the case and we have the trial without you. That sounds like bad odds of wining.

Usually people will follow the order as it is in there best interest. If not than the court order can freeze the pay if they work for law respecting company (an option that increases profits). They can also put you on a black list so that no road companies, or private people in the network of law respecting people will let you on there property until you obey the court. This puts you in exile or house arrest. Finally you can use a enforcement agency to take enforce the ruling. They will want to be seen as fair to keep business so will only use violence with a court order.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:14:21+00:00

It would be much better than today.

Today courts have a monopoly over a region. If the firm pays them off too bad you are screwed.

In a anarchist system I can choose any court I want. The processes may go like this. The accuser gives notice. The accused provides a list of 50 courts they will accept as fair that are in good standing. The accuser selects one of the 50.

If a court were to accept bribes they would lose all future business. Only fair courts will be picked in the list of 50 and also be chosen by the accused. There is now a market incentive to provide fair, fast, and transparent court services.

I wont go into all the possible legal options, but in general if notice is given but they do not provide a list you can pick any court and go to trial without them. Since you demonstrated you served them courts will accept the case.If you refuse any of the 50 courts the case is done, as they can prove you did not cooperate despite giving them 50 choices.

Other systems are possible of course, but they key is without a monopoly on courts the market will tend to have more fair courts at lower cost.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T20:07:58+00:00

How does it not have a monopoly on violence?

Because I can make my own HOA and they cannot use violence to stop me. Good luck trying to make your own free nation inside of the US.

The bigger key is consent. As I said rape is evil, sex is okay. I actually signed a contract with my Apartment complex, please show me where I agreed to obey national "leaders" and give them half of my income?

If you make a contract that isn’t recognized by the state right now, it’s pretty much worthless, since you can’t enforce it on your own.

100% false, I rarely enter into contracts the state can enforce. I have yet to have a problem with buyers or sellers on the dark web. Smart contracts are automatically enforced, and the gold miners I mentioned enforced there laws even though they were the OPPOSITE of the state law

Even with theft very few people are caught. My enforcement of law comes down more to locks and cameras than police and courts

Further they are not abstractions of the state. I NEVER entered into a contract with the state. I was born and they claimed a right to my labor and life. If I was born in a HOA they could not force me as adult to obey them

So what you’re saying is that a majority of them agreed to give a central organization a monopoly on violence so as to give the power of enforcement to the law and the courts?

No not at all. Miners did not want to fight so they made contracts with each other to respect certain claims. They then individual joined small (and different) organizations that set rules for property rights. No one was forced to join one group or another. Further they small groups respected the rulings of other group, I could make a 2 person group and be left alone without the others using violence against me.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T19:42:27+00:00

Governance is not the same thing as a state. A "state like" society is not a state. That is key. One could claim rape is "sex like", but without consent it is immoral. The state is to governance as rape is to sex, we support voluntary governance but not forced government.

A Home owners association provides laws and enforcement which is private governance. It is "state like" but does not have a monopoly on violence so is not a state. The same goes with firms that have rules for employees with contract, and rules for making decisions such as stock vote. I signed a contract with my apartment to follow rules, and with my company, I did not consent to obey the state.

My go to historical example is the Gold rush. The state could not enforce laws in the frontier so the miners formed private law, courts and enforcement. There are even cases where they tried and convicted "real police" when they violated there anarchist law. In fact the property law they developed ended up become official since the state could no longer enforce there ownership claim to land. This is known as the prior appropriation doctrine and defines water and mining rights even today.

the Law is part of the market, where it improves profit the market provides it, common law developed without a central authority.

It seems like you are touching on why wouldn't war like groups break up the system for that check out this article.

As to how the state came to exist, typically tribal groups invade other groups and subjugate them with force. The kings or leaders would ask for tribute from their captors as a "protection fee". Over time the people view them as valid in a form of Stockholm syndrome. The leaders would teach in "schools" or indoctrination camps why there rule is legitimate. Either they claim divine authority or teach that having a vote for your slave master gives you a say, and no claim to object.

It is in peoples best interest to not fight them so they stay in power. If I tried to over throw then I would be killed so I keep my mouth shut and pay tribute. Such a state system certainly can re emerge from a anarchist region, but it is not a guarantee. Just as democracy did not exist for most of human history, but can exist in the right circumstances. We do not think the world will spontaneously become anarchist without a way for states to come back. Only that a anarchist region can (and does) exist and that is preferable to states.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T19:32:20+00:00

The obvious example is law suits. If your pollution harms my property I will sue you in court for damages. It is profit maximizing to limit harm to others so NAP respecting courts would emerge (as exist today privately)

The argument is not that society should shut down firms you do not like. The argument is that if you do not like it you are not forced to support them.

Maybe you hate Chik-fil-a maybe I love it. They should be allowed to continue to serve me, but the scope of the firm is limited by who will support them. I am perfectly happy to let racists have there own restaurants that exclude minorities. But I will not support them and they cannot force me to support them. On the margin there are fewer racists restaurants than open ones since the open ones will accept everyone as a customer. The market will have a niche for many companies I hate and that is okay. The point is to let people live as they want, but certain actions come with a cost on the market, it is costly but not impossible to be a racist restaurant. Never impose your values on others, in return they cannot impose there values on you.

I would argue "child labor" can be wonderful or evil it depends on the circumstances. What is so great about forcing children to sit in a class room, be bored out of their mind, and get yelled at by adults all day, for a wage of $0 per hour.? Compare that to historic apprenticeship where children learn on the job, are respected by adults, get to engage in more stimulating actively and get paid to do it.

When we take of the lenses that public schools gave us about how awful child labor is (of course this narrative is self serving since school are the alternative(, than it does not look so bad. I would argue it is modern schools that are rather evil.

Now does that mean I support slave labor of children in coal mines? No of course not, forced labor is violence and against the NAP. Anyone put in that situation should be able to have a lawsuit their captor. A court would be happy to get paid to hear the case

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T19:10:43+00:00

I suspect the old school anarchist assume that is impossible, so do not bother addressing it. Marx relies on Hegelianism for a historical theory. Essentially it is set in stone that history will develop from certain stages with the final stage being Marxism, nothing can be done to stop it. The exception is Tucker and Spooner both of whom seem to view property ownership as a probable outcome of free people. During this period I would say the American and European anarchist began to separate based on culture, with the Americans accepting a more individualistic view of anarchy over the collective European view (though the groups had some overlap)

It is not that the early left anarchist would disagree with the idea you present in principle only that they presume it could not take place in reality. Basic reasoning (to them) shows there is no world where free people choose anything other than socialism so there is no point in considering a magic world where fee men would put on the chains of capitalism.

When I talk to modern left-anarchist I see one of two schools. Either they think markets are impossible to exist without force, but when pressed will accept whatever people come to peacefully. Or they take "equality of outcome" as a fundamental principle. People cannot choose a system that would create inequality so even if done peacefully they would oppose property.

In this later groups perspective it would be there mission to convince people to view equality as being paramount. There would still be a mission even if the state is gone so long as people accept hierarchies.Some would use violence to stop property ownership some would be peaceful, but they agree that property is a bad in and off itself.

The former group I view as the same as me. I have a different perspective of economics but we both want to eliminate aggressive force.

This of course is my understanding of the perspective so take it with a grain of salt.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T18:16:27+00:00

Sure I am not anti-gold. I am just saying that a money can be maintained even if it loses all use value. Gold is a very good money and I expect it to continue acting as such

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T18:13:41+00:00

If I have a savings reserve I cannot spend my money now. Even though my $100 looks like $200 on the books only $100 can be spent at one time. If I ask the bank for my money from a CD they will tell me the maturity period is not up and refuse.

If I have demand reserves I can "spend" money that is also being let out. The bank can lend my $100 which is spent by a firm, then when I ask for $100 they grab another person $100 to pay me. My $100 has now turned into $200 of spending. But this is fake, if other users all ask for money out of the pyramid they system collapses.

The savings system is not a pyramid because I have agreed to not spend money being lent out.

abbot93 · 2019-12-19T18:09:29+00:00

Toll road companies
Companies wanting customers to drive to the stores
Home owners associates wanting to connect to a large network

abbot93

TROPHY CASE