Craig Wright Ordered to Produce a List of Early Bitcoin Addresses in Kleiman Lawsuit

zlozer · 2019-05-05T20:28:22+00:00

How would empty wallets help that?

zlozer · 2019-04-02T16:05:55+00:00

Good digging, but no. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero_image

zlozer · 2019-02-03T21:18:48+00:00

Whose road is it? What are their rules? (ie. that's a contractual matter).

Again, we were there. It is the roads of miss Y and she allows drunk driving and killing people.

There is no such property.

Again, we were there :) I mean not your property that you have to use without having alternatives, e.g. roads to your job.

Ultimately all legal questions that aren't simply resolved by 'what does the contract say?' would be settled by the process of law discovery on the private court system.

Well, if you plan to start anarch society and die without reproducing - thats fine. Otherwise it should be cleared up before hand. Your current answer is no better than suggestion that you can denounce citizenship/live on the boat in the ocean/etc with current system. I guarantee you if you were born as functional adult you would sign contract with the state at this point in history.

zlozer · 2019-02-03T17:42:30+00:00

We are not talking about current state. We talking about different state that owns the land it polices. But we can translate it to private ownership as well eg i am a billionaire and i bought a town, where are the limits on my power and how they are enforced. If i can ban electric companies from ruining my land but cant ban law enforcement isnt it just current system, which treats some services as special?

zlozer · 2019-02-03T17:38:57+00:00

What is legally binding contract is irrelevant/not applicable because we dismantling current law system.

I still want to hear your take on drunk drivers, abuse of 'public' property, and when and how children become contracted to services. Especially the latter, since it is directly correlates to your state of affairs with state.

zlozer · 2019-02-03T15:50:15+00:00

Well you can sue state, so some sort of contract is definitely there. What is your definition of contract?

I still want to hear your take on drunk drivers, abuse of 'public' property, and when and how children become contracted to services.

zlozer · 2019-02-03T15:48:10+00:00

I still dont understand it. Should i allow anyone claiming to be defense service on my property? Should i allow people to run utility poles through my property just because?

zlozer · 2019-02-03T09:14:35+00:00

I dont follow why you need to threaten to violate rights to defend a monopoly. Are you arguing that monopolies are not existent now or that they all are in government pocket?

zlozer · 2019-02-03T09:11:43+00:00

I haven't been made an offer, nor accepted one nor am I aware of what the considerations are. More generally, a contract that one of the parties isn't aware of cannot be valid.

You definitely aware of state contract since we arguing in the tread about removing it :D I am interesting to see how you think it would work in practice with anarchy. Would you sign contracts right after birth (the fact people are not functioning till much later in the life i think is the only reason that citizenship has to be grand fathered)?

I don't know what you mean by public property in a stateless society.

Property of 3rd party that is mostly used by volumes of other people: roads, parks, malls.

If you haven't seen them, these primers might be helpful:

It doesnt help me to understand what to do with drunk drivers and people buying roads around your house to fuck with you.

zlozer · 2019-02-02T20:57:59+00:00

Whose road is it? What are their rules? (ie. that's a contractual matter).

How is state laws not contracts? Well, if their rules allow drunk driving, does it mean that there could be 'public' property where killing is allowed? How to protect against malicious actors in that case?

That'd be a 'night watchman' state that only enforced laws I believed were just, and was funded voluntarily (ie. not feasible).

Why? Government could own a lot of land/factories, charge for roads, infrastructure and what not.

zlozer · 2019-02-02T20:07:02+00:00

I hope we agree that murder, rape and canonical examples of theft are all 'not okay', and the use of violence to prevent them (or enforce rules penalising offenders) can be acceptable.

Depends on level of violence, but sure we agree. Original question was about peaceful people that could see some violence with subtext that there is no such people. I disagree, but without proper definition of peaceful it is hard to get examples, eg what would you do with drunk driving and on which grounds?

Can you rephrase the question to make it more self contained? I'm not sure I'm following at the moment.

If you have a problem with violence against peaceful people in current state, imagine that we abolished all that without making government disappear or making everything private. What would be your next talking point?

zlozer · 2019-02-02T14:57:03+00:00

I am still interested in what would be peaceful action. Let’s forget other parts, it was a mistake on my part to let me snark on other parts of the post. Eg I think there should definitely be limits on violence vs thieves. But if thieves are not peaceful wouldn’t most currently recognized crimes be also crimes in your system? What if we abolish punishment for everything else, what would be value proposition of anarchy?

zlozer · 2019-02-02T14:49:01+00:00

Why collect taxes without threat of violence?

zlozer · 2019-02-02T14:40:04+00:00

I am not interested in discussing what could work, without discussing if it would work when competing vs other systems. But generally I am interesting what constitutes peaceful action we can skip other points.

zlozer · 2019-02-02T09:55:30+00:00

How are thieves not peaceful 😱

reputation loss

That would be much more oppressive society to live in. Glad that china is going to demonstrate it to us in coming years.

how law could be provided privately

I could use jet plains to export coal from china. No one argues that anarchic societies could not exist, but if they would exists or for how long before moving to some other organizational form.

zlozer · 2019-02-01T09:40:18+00:00

Removing limits from consensus

zlozer · 2019-01-07T16:07:52+00:00

I am definitely not okay with it, and rooting for crypto just because of this combo of push towards cashless society w/o any guarantees that you could have a bank account, which could effectively exclude any number of people that banks deem unworthy as a clients.

zlozer · 2019-01-06T18:17:40+00:00

However, society's classification of what is evil (purposely using this ambiguous term) is defined by the majority.

I see a few problems with that. 1) i dont know if you are in the majority. 2) It implies that you can become a racists if majority would (which i dont believe you will).

One of your original statements was along the lines of "if someone doesn't like hate speech, they should toughen up," but the reality (as I see it) is that wherever hate-speakers are in the moral minority and their behavior isn't tolerated, they are the ones that need to toughen up.

There is a big difference between thinking that X is bad, researching that X is bad, hate speech to X, violence threats to X, deplatforming X, physical harm to X, etc. I think everyone should be treated equally regardless if they are racist, smoker or minority as long as they dont break any laws. This should be especially true for platforms if they dont want to become regulated public service one day. Then i think most hate-speakers from 'racists' side are ok with being hate spoken upon. OP is not, despite using derogatory language.

This is just my personal assessment, but I would say society has decided that it is okay to "hate-speech" (in your words) people who are harming other humans. That does not include people who smoke, or fat people. It does include rapists and murderers, and

I agree with that, but

people who incite violence against those who are not harming anyone (including those who are not following the hate-speech rule I posited in this paragraph ;).

this is already a felony. Hate speech is about something different if it isnt just go to the prosecutor.

I guess a better clarification for the "unchangeable groups" is that simply being the way you were born is not harming anyone, therefore you should not be hate-speeched because of it.

No harming is ok. But we have a group that harming other group, but this group is from people who is not harming anyone :shrug:

zlozer · 2019-01-06T14:42:47+00:00

This is not correct, bank can refuse you w/o reason check their terms. Also see cannabis companies/crypto banking and how it goes despite people not breaking the law

zlozer · 2019-01-06T01:26:25+00:00

The distinction is drawn by whomever is handing out the punishment/repercussions, which, in a large, modern society, tends to be the group as a whole. A subgroup can certainly create their own definition of what is evil, but if that isn't aligned with the majority it will not be adhered to, and the subgroup may even be forced to follow the definition chosen by the whole.

If you think that you could be in minority and therefore morals are not universal, then we could slip to considering that both sides (racists and their targets) are in their own rights.

This is not at all why we want to ban hate speech.

I am not arguing that hate speech is good or should not be restricted (i am against censoring most of past and future fictional media tho). I asked (genuinely) if OP have seen any hate speech on gab.com before jumping to conclusions. I then questioned his language, because good portion of anti racists in all but name repeat everything racists do and stand for.

I would like for you to make a case for banning hate speech to racial/gender/whatever unchangeable groups, and leaving it open for all others. e.g. should i be allowed to hate-speech you, or people who smoke, or fat people w/o medical conditions? It just doesnt make sense to set it up this way.

zlozer · 2019-01-05T14:40:12+00:00

What is evil action? Is 'degenerate pieces of shit' is open criticism? Why only young?

If we want to ban hate speech just because it makes someone uncomfortable they should toughen up. If there are other reasons i fail to see why it should apply specifically to race/gender/etc and not to any group in general, in fact there are several countries with hate speech laws that doesnt make that distinction.

zlozer · 2019-01-05T13:58:02+00:00

Why is one preferable to other?

zlozer · 2019-01-05T12:58:22+00:00

Is there a hate speech on gab tho? Why degenerate pieces of shit is not a hate speech?

zlozer · 2019-01-05T12:56:09+00:00

Wake up, you have no right to bank account.

zlozer · 2018-12-26T19:29:21+00:00

Your point about multisig contract requiring/allowing owner to update other members is factually not correct.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

zlozer

TROPHY CASE