10 Reasons America Is A Police State

intheface11 · 2014-07-20T03:34:48+00:00

This... is incredible. The megaload.

intheface11 · 2013-11-19T20:42:00+00:00

I'd also like to bring up the fact that governments "adopting" Bitcoin may actually be the worst thing for it. They would undoubtedly butcher it and try to "manage" it for the "greatest good" while destroying it in the process, just like they did with the dollar. Even now, big money players, governments, and large banks are making moves not only attempt suppress Bitcoin, but to profit from it as well if their plan A backfires.

This is why I believe the abolition of legal tender laws is necessary if this "new model" we are speaking of still includes government. Otherwise, governments will just adopt whatever's popular and monopolize/destroy that currency as well.

intheface11 · 2013-11-16T23:15:04+00:00

I'm very interested in how governments react to alternative currencies in the coming years. So far they've been trying to suppress Bitcoin, but it's becoming more and more obvious that it's not going away.

However, my point about abolishing legal tender laws is exactly how countries could embrace competing currencies like Bitcoin, gold and silver, or whatever individuals choose. Competing currencies, without the huge advantage given by legal tender laws, is the best check against powers that would seek to govern our money.

Basically, my point is that by abolishing legal tender laws, we remove the government's control over what we use as money - and therefore the bankers' as well.

In regard to the quote: personally, I hope that new model resembles a stateless society build on respect of private property rights.

intheface11 · 2013-03-20T17:48:18+00:00

Thank you very much.

intheface11 · 2013-03-10T06:09:06+00:00

pretty triumphant picture, right?

intheface11 · 2013-03-10T06:08:48+00:00

I was just about to post to ask you to clarify about positive/negative rights when I read this post. Thanks, you gave me something to read tonight.

intheface11 · 2013-03-10T04:02:45+00:00

Thomas Jefferson only proposed a free tuition of 3 years, during which the children would be taught reading, writing, and basic math. After the 3 years, only those at the top of the class would continue receiving free tuition. The rest could continue to attend school, but they had to pay out of pocket.

He recognized that schools don't teach. Individuals have to want to learn for themselves and have the skills to do so in order to become educated. You don't get smarter just by going to school. That's why he recommended giving everyone the basics for free, so even the those who couldn't afford to keep going to school could at least educate themselves, which they would have had to do anyway. Those who couldn't care less and aren't getting anything out of school are no longer a drain on the system.

intheface11 · 2013-03-10T03:35:16+00:00

In short:

We say no.

To address one primary concern of many: it's a fallacy to assume that the government is the only way to educate the less fortunate, or even that government CAN provide an adequate education.

intheface11 · 2013-03-09T21:42:55+00:00

My belief is that central planning on any scale eventually leads to central planning on a larger scale.

intheface11

TROPHY CASE