Youtube comments of Frenchie’s Philosophy (@tsuich00i).

  1. 283
  2. 156
  3. 55
  4. 50
  5. 35
  6. 30
  7. 28
  8. 18
  9. 18
  10. 17
  11. 15
  12. Eliott Afriat lol then you forget or failed to read your history. Louis XIV, the greatest son France ever had, finalizing what Richileu had set in motion decades earlier, united France, making her, with the help of Vauban, what she is today--the bastion fortresses the latter erected along the furtherest reaches of french continental dominon at every point of geo-strategic defense, have defined the borders of our country since. The revolutionaries, who, what they lacked in civic diligence, they made up for in political shortsightedness, accomplished nothing constructive of any lasting significance within the nation they plundered of centuries human capital built developing art, science and philosophy to their zenith, all wasted in pursuit of Hell on Earth, and who in their short reign of terror, proved so inept and malfiescent, that they ruined what was, in the century before, Europe's superpower; a status Napoleon restored France to in the same span the Jacobins had squandered the nation's blood and treasure on failed liberal policies. Why the king and Ancient Regime in general, seems in posterity, like the work of some great saint when you compare their foibles to those who succeed and then exceeded our worst monarchs in brazen stupidity. But by all means, do no let me disabuse you of your taudry delusions with these unflattering truths, when you're already so convinced of such titilatting myths! I wouldn't dream of making a recalcitrant socialist come to grips with reality when he is so much more useful to me politically as an example of invincible ignorance that I am able mock with such ease for the benefit of the public whenever I please.
    10
  13. 9
  14. 9
  15. 7
  16. 7
  17. 6
  18. 6
  19. 5
  20. 5
  21. 5
  22. 5
  23. 5
  24. 5
  25. 5
  26. 5
  27. 4
  28. 4
  29. 4
  30. 4
  31. 4
  32. 4
  33. 4
  34. 4
  35. 3
  36. 3
  37. 3
  38. 3
  39. 3
  40. 3
  41. ChooseToThink "Believed but not demonstrated." Hitchen's razor applies only to those things which require agreement. That there is a God "out there" is inevident because it exists outside the material realm and therefore is unfathomable (although "involved" in worldly affairs to the extent it brought everything into existence). All your position does is personally place science above religion. Which, in itself is a belief in the scientific method based on faith in flawed human faculties. Where you make the jump is from saying that the senses are the best way to investigate and understand things, to the conclusion that there is nothing beyond our comprehension (O' how like a God!). It's fine to favor one over the other, so long as you're able to admit it's limits. and recognize the value of reason is not answerable in terms of itself, (without falling victim to the tautology you abhor) and thus arises only out of feeling. It also doesn't make sense to take a position from science on something unscientific.  By the way, the scientific establishment does not take a stance on is there or is there not a god, it simply states what it can study.If it where reversed, every researcher would be required to renounce their religion and everything else they had an opinion on, every time they went to work.  "we carry on as if it doesn't." Ah, but you don't, or else we wouldn't need a word for atheism. There is a term for every possible and impossible thing we've yet conceived- atheism however is- as far as I know- the only one that is simultaneously a positive and negative claim, (there isn't one for "no bread" or "not Reagon" and so on...) which is why the word is redudance to begin with. If the default is nonbelief, leave it at that and if asked, say "non-declared" "Abstract things like math and logic don't "exist"" Platoism-  a philosophy adopted by many mathematicans (nearly a third according to the NYT) begs to differ.  http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B05E7D7133DF930A25752C0A96E9C8B63 "I'm out because it seems this is all lost on you" I think i've been more than reasonable. But of course, I can't force you to see reason. All that's lost here is your sense.
    3
  42. Brandon G A handful of cherry-picked anomalies does not a market make. The fact is, all things being equal, they didn't make much of a difference, for the trend is clear. Blacks did not then nor have they succeed in business on parr with their white counterparts, and there is no other reason for this but for their deliberate exclusion by white people generally. That is an economic pattern, improved only by the law, not the world of fiance. These details of history are marginal and unremarkable. Unless you can cite how blacks played a major role in reshaping the market to meet their needs, then your examples are extraneous. As for your attack on my presumption of black capability, you're argument borders on the absurd and indeed goes against your thesis. Of course blacks have done well inspite of the overwhelmingly disadvantageous circumstances under which they arrived on this continent, precisely because they are able. That effort however, has largely gone unrealized for historical reasons that ought trouble anyone aware of them. I have never once advocated welfare or state-dependence of any sort, as you fictitiously imply. The issue concerns creating an equal playing field, wherein merit makes a difference. Throughout the entirety of this thread, you still have yet to address what makes the choice of the "conscientious objector"/merchant justifiable. There just isn't a logical reason to deny black people service. Nor could the baking of a glorified pastry on the occasion of conjugation count as a betrayal of faith by any standard, even among the most ardent believer. Unless asked to engage in same-sex behavior, no line has been crossed linking them to homosexuality. If I, as a business person were to say to you "I don't accept money, money is dirty, I accept payment in denominations of good natured goats" well then who are you to say to me no? An individual's personal idealities are second to the conventional function of the entire economy as overseen by the regulatory framework which ensures "business as usual" in an interrupted process of lawful transactions. And If your libertarian principles were consistent, you would understand that this impedes on the right of consumer to freely conduct themselves and engage in opportune exchanges. No civil society is about to abide a "deal breaker" condition stipulating the race, sex, age, or religion of the person as a requirement for entering into a contract. If that is what you defending, it's frankly laughable. The market need discriminate on the basis of only one variable: the ability to pay. All other factors are irrelevant. 
    3
  43. 3
  44. 3
  45. 3
  46. 3
  47. 3
  48. 3
  49. 3
  50. 3
  51. 3
  52. 3
  53. 3
  54. 2
  55. 2
  56. 2
  57. 2
  58. 2
  59. 2
  60. 2
  61. 2
  62. 2
  63. 2
  64. 2
  65. 2
  66. 2
  67. 2
  68. 2
  69. 2
  70. 2
  71. 2
  72. 2
  73. 2
  74. fmlAllthetime This comment is so frawt is vaunted, indignant stupidity, it hardly warrants reference to. But here are a few points for anyone else interested in precisely how maniacal you are.  1. Wars are expensive. Governments rarely make a profit from them. Remind me, how much debt did Iraq rep up for you?... Oh and that's rhetorical.  2. Police, real police, require training, discipline, organization, and most importantly knowledge of the law, ALL things the average citizen lacks in abundance. They also must coordinate between themselves to prevent and end crime in an ever-evolving elicit environment. All of this seems to escape you however.  3. Psychology isn't magic. Many men see and use guns as a way to assert there masculinity, forcing people to pay attention to them, because they failed to develop the social skills necessary to be confidant in who they are in-themselves, which grows into a negative and twisted self-image which casts everyone around them in a poor, and even paranoid light. (your distrust of all public organizations is a good example of this) Which is done to avoid the a self-critical look at how they might be wrong. It is something in their childhood I would gather, leaving them damaged and broken, a danger to the public and therefor useless to the rest of society, which is a source of resentment on their part, and the cause of lashing out and clinging to guns as their only outlet and power they have over the world. That is it's most extreme expression, but those who find it with themselves to act on their fantasies, are symptoms of a larger, more common problem. 
    2
  75. 2
  76. 2
  77. 2
  78. 2
  79. 2
  80. 2
  81. 2
  82. 2
  83. 2
  84. 2
  85. 2
  86. 2
  87. 2
  88. 2
  89. 2
  90. 2
  91. 2
  92. 2
  93. lennypoz As a Conservative (from France), I can tell you based on cultural experience (as well as historical knowledge) that that is not so. In fact, the origins of the contemporary conservative movement can be traced to just before the French and American revolutions, to the English Restoration.  Without having to bore you, conservatism has most traditionally been associated with the Aristocracy- whom strongly believed in a hierarchical, theocratic society that placed emphasis on the power of a central authority, particularly that of a King/Church/Emperor, so on and so forth. In Kingdom's (and later empire's, both conservative entities) there is no such thing as "semi-autonomous" departments, in any way, shape, or form similar to the level of independence your state's operate on. Territories that acted in a way outside what was ordained appropriate (such as worshiping unsanctioned gods,  paying tribute to foreign organizations, etc.) were swiftly made to fall back in line. This is because conservatism, by its nature, promotes a homogeneous social system. (See Japan for a modern example, or America's current immigration policy) Which is why you need one leader, and one source of power in this kind of government- to maintain consistency, and thus order, (research Confucian China for an example) which is not a very American philosophy. I find it Immensely ironic that Americans use conservatism to avow the idea of "small government"- If you read your history, It was in the 50's, when Barry Goldwater (who had a tremendous impact on the thinking of Ronald Reagon) ran for president, introducing his own libertarian spin on conservative ideology, that "small government" entered today's pool of political catchphrases. 
    2
  94. 2
  95. 2
  96. 2
  97. Soff1859 Exactly. It's fallacious to say that simply because something is done in geographic location X, it ought to remain that way. Apparently, in this quaintly simplistic worldview of they'res, people never change, nor have they the need to change, because the convenience guns afford them matter more than the worthless lives of everyone who doesn't share the same good fortune of being at the right place and at the right time, as gun-nuts seem to posses an almost uncanny ability of finding themselves in- or so they have dreampt up.  The brutal truth is that a mainstream, middle America has accepted the practice of taking it upon themselves to seek their safety, not through any rational or remotely moral methods, but by judging for themselves who should live or die. So far, the only argument made in favor of gun ownership by the posters above has not been guns are good- no one would believe that- but that there isn't anything you can do about them. Essentially, they're fatalistic defeatists.   The lesson we should derive from this, is an almost absurdly amusing conclusion, where it not for the fact it is so abhorrent: That Americans have given up on working toward the "hard solution", as evidenced by what the Japanese and others like them have accomplished, through centuries of cultivating a culture that is intolerant of these gruesome atrocities, and stands firm against indiscretion. They don't want to have to look in the mirror and reflect on the prospect that they have been in the wrong all along: even, and especially by their own standards! Instead, the easy route is opted, with no a care in the world for the dire consequences. They just go about there business pretending like nothing is wrong with this picture. In a phrase, shootings are the new J-walking. Something which makes American culture, a lazy culture and a weak one. For all the talk by neo-cons of self-discipline and hard work, they have all but given up on the prospect of making good on those principles here. What cowardice. 
    2
  98. 2
  99. 2
  100. 2
  101. Progressive taxation is not unjust. It is perfectly reasonable to ask more of those with more to give. Moreover, as a percentage of income, higher taxation has less of an effect on the purchasing power of rich as it would the poor. For example, let us say the minimum living standard in the US is 10,000 a year (this is the amount you must pay to cover the basic necessities) if that is so, the people at the lower bracket who make 20,000 and are taxed 10% of that, or 2,000 dollars still have 8,000 left to do as they please with; to spend or perhaps invest. Meanwhile, the group at the top, let us say they make 1,000,000 dollars at a rate of 90%. They still have 90,000 left, and so the burden is low for both. The question of whether this is right or not comes into play when you consider the value the government generates it's respective citizens, based on the amount they pay. With that in mind, I would argue this exchange- albeit involuntary- is a good deal for both, even the rich man at 900,000 a year. The reason being is the rich tend to make greater use of goods and services guaranteed by law. Like airport security, water reserves, and the court system (often just to make more money). They also take up large amounts of land that might otherwise be more productive in the hands of the general population. Finally, I arrive at the fact that best explains why the well-off tolerate paying a higher percentage: If the government was so demanding of the wealthy, then why do they stay? They have the money afterall, they can live anywhere! Surely they could find a country more appreciative of their affluence. And yet they never do- even when the tax rate were much higher than they are now, they've never once left in any noticeable number, and that I submit as proof that they approve of the contract they have entered into with the state to do their fair share. Unfortunately, with the effective tax rate such that it is, not even this is asked of them.
    2
  102. 2
  103. 2
  104. 2
  105. 2
  106. 2
  107. 2
  108. 2
  109. 2
  110. 2
  111. Alejandro Drabenche Gold and Oil can't make you rich though, that may sound oxi-moronic, but people are the only ones who can trade in "power" to express their value. For example, The man who is in need of a plumber is "powerless" to fix his plumbing. So if he wants something done about it, he must first find a suitable specialist, and come up with something that person wants.  In this case, Gold and Oil are only as important as the desire for them is. The universal use of gold and oil is what gives them near-intrinsic value. Nevertheless, the plumber may deny their value at any time without owing anyone an explanation. There is no guarantee, and therefore, no reason and more importantly, nobody to trust.  Decentralization may be beneficial in some respects, but on the issue of trust it is not, because you can only place your trust in people, not things. Bitcoin's trustworthiness is a function of the individual trustworthiness of each and every individual who makes a share of the total number of bitcoins. In effect, you are distributing your trust among a much larger pool of people then you normally would have to with a monetary agency that can be held accountable if there is a breach in trust, which in the case of the Federal Reserve, it would fall on Chairwomen Yellen to answer for. I'm much more comfortable pointing my finger at her if and when "shit hits then fan" than the dubious proposition of isolating who is to blame when Bitcoin goes awry.  The only way to rationally access the degree to which one trusts such a share, largely depends on how much faith you have in humanity, with so many individuals across distance involved. I'm not prepared to make such a judgement, and choose to err on the side of caution.  You can read up on and study public figures like Yellen, with a name and face, that can maybe give you a glance at their motives, morals, and abilities. You'll have a much harder time getting to know the people behind Bitcoin. 
    2
  112. 2
  113. 2
  114. 2
  115. 2
  116. 1
  117. 1
  118. 1
  119. 1
  120. 1
  121. 1
  122. 1
  123. 1
  124. 1
  125. 1
  126. fmlAllthetime You don't know how an analogue works at all. "a literary work that shares motifs, characters or events with another, but is not directly derived from it" You want cats to be exactly the same as children. Guess what? if they were, we wouldn't need the analogue! The point is to abstract similar qualities to get a sense for a simple case of a more complex phenomena. "Life is like a river" is also an anlogue: it moves in one direction, it has twists and turns, and it ends. But they aren't exactly the same. But the ideas translated perfectly. You just don't have the education to figure this out, I can't help you.   2. Murder is physical last I checked, and unless your talking about the death penalty or war, I'd happily accept those could be immoral, I have no strong feelings about them anyway. But by your own logic you'd have to concede a war of defense is justified. Otherwise, I don't see the reason to bring this up.   "...provoking force upon adults acting peaceably.." uhm, where did you even get this? Who said or implied this? I'm utterly confused. "unprovoked force" was your term, not my. I asked why you think "force" is never justified, don't put words in my mouth. Secondly, you presume everyone is acting peacefully all the time in this statement. what? Thirdly, you connect the two in the weirdest way possible, as if to suggest the government is "out to get everyone" and "looking for trouble" which is a thought consistent with the rest of your paranoid preconception, but is still bizarre and bewildering beyond belief. 
    1
  127. 1
  128. 1
  129. 1
  130. fmlAllthetime again, you keep adding qualifiers, I already argued unambigously that not all force is violent under the concept of restraint.  Actually I just took it as granted: If a community raises you you owe them. Period. If you ever drank from there fountains, open a book in their library, or accepted medical services from their hospitals, you owe them. Now, if they asked you for six cents for that book you read, and 13 for the water, and 1450 for the stitches in your head, that wouldn't be very efficient or neighborly. So instead we do it lump-sum at one time. Think about what it costs for you to exist even before you are born. Think of the planning your parents put into beforehand, the advice they took from friends in family around them, the cost of the pediatrician they saw to oversee the health of the embryo, the incubator that may have breathed for you when you couldn't, the opportunity cost of the nurses who delivered you when they could have been out shopping, the amount of research that went into any medication you've been prescribed, vaccine you've had, or antibiotics you've needed over the course of your life. And then theirs the education you've had, the sidewalks you've walked on, the water, food, electricity, and shelter you've consumed, the training of the military that kept harm far from your home, and so much more. So by the time you reach the age of eighteen, you already owe your society a tremendous debt, which is offset and payed for by the previous generation (because babies don't make money) as you will one day pay for the next succeeding batch and so on, cyclically, forever. That is the foundation for the Social Contract and why it works, and it's a very ethical exchange if i've every seen one. 
    1
  131. 1
  132. 1
  133. 1
  134. 1
  135. 1
  136. 1
  137. 1
  138. 1
  139. 1
  140. 1
  141. 1
  142. 1
  143. 1
  144. 1
  145. 1
  146. 1
  147. 1
  148. 1
  149. 1
  150. 1
  151. ChooseToThink  "Then it's either not intended to be used as you have done here, or it's simply wrong." That is not a reason. It is an argument from ignorance. You like logic, or so you say. Try using it.  "so denuded of anything recognizable in holy texts that it is meaningless." This too is highly fallacious. If religion is defined by every religion presently, or previously recorded by history then the word cannot be used in general (abstract) terms. For example, under the your view, no future religion could be created. If you still don't understanding the rational failing you've fallen into, consider biology. Applying your reasoning, evolution would be rendered impossible by the fact life as it is known now cannot change. Obviously, this is wrong.  "of no use"  I could say the same of you and your view.  a. You yourself are of no use to me.  b. Atheism is a empty belief pertaining to a nonexistent deity. c. "utility" is an anthropic concept, like a Unicorn. According to you, this would make it not real, because it does not describe the natural world.  The nonsense of this position extends far beyond my willingness to type, and I find myself left leaving as the indefensible absurdity that it is.  But even if this were true, it would entail the exclusive existence of those things of use to you and in the world, and so, your skepticism would then have to include your atheism; which has no practical significance whatsoever. Secondly, if there is no use to your existence (things can be of use to you, but you cannot be of use to the universe) in which case you would need a God to worship grounding your purpose, justifying yourself. Somehow I imagine this is not what you meant, nevertheless, it is implicit in everything you've said up to this point- an issue problematic whether you deny or defend it. (either way, this gives birth to more errors I am prepared to report)  "the bible claims god is perfect in every way." I am not arguing for Christianity, or any other specific religion for that matter.  I will accept this definition of god: _"a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically :  one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality" The burden remains on you disprove the possibility of just such a being.  On the "impractical"/immoral aspect of religion you touch on, religious serves an aesthetic purpose that secularism has never inspired in the slightest, nor come close to in the least. 
    1
  152. 1
  153. 1
  154. 1
  155. Brandon G You are treating black business as though they were the equal of the white kind at the time. Take the case of a pharmacies as an example. Do you honestly expect me to believe the blackman could have fostered a peer-reviewed, quality controlled, profitable enterprise centered around providing their people with life saving medications reliably and affordably? If so you gest and the test is this: If the hypothetical white person wouldn't touch those pills, neither should the African they came from.  Your second suggestion has some merit, but is complicated by a variety of important social factors. Who is going to approve the purchase of the lot on which you erect your place of business? Not white people given your apparent sympathies that's for sure. Secondly, you, being better off then the blacks you cater to, and with your money tied down in capital investments, should expect your prices to be very, very low. So if your bakery sells bread at 25 cents a loaf, and the retail price you pay is 20, and the white man pays 50, how profitable do you expect this ethically-minded enterprise of yours to be? At a certain point, pushing product won't be enough when the margin is that close. Also, there's nothing to stop white people from going in there themselves and clearing your shelves. Then there is the class hazard to contend with. What happens when the uneducated and the delinquent come into your store to mislead, steal and deal drugs? The problem with racism is it has a double effect- the designated group is vilified, and vice versa. Simply put, if I don't like you, chances are you don't like me. And so you yourself, despite your good intentions, are bound to become the focus of people's hatred, largely out of ignorance but a target none the less. I don't think these problems are surmountable. Least of all through the benevolence of market forces.  
    1
  156. 1
  157. Brandon G There is a distinction between law, as it is written in the books at any one moment and lawfulness, which I would define as the principle that some rules should always been followed, unlike you, who seems to allow for different standards to be applied to different people, so long as they merely believe they should behave that way.  "Dictating to some people to have different principles and business preferences in terms of race down the barrel of a state gun is immoral." Your right, but dictating that all people operate under the same standards and business preferences backed by force IS moral.  "how many would preclude customers based on such shallow standards like race? And how many competitors would be available to the precluded?" Whole civilizations have at one point or another been ruled by a tiny few, at the expense of a vast number of peoples, pitted against each other to distract them from the far and aloof tyranny. Rome is one such example, modern times, another. You are naive to think this a rare occurrence; on the contrary, the concentration of power by a self-selected elite is a repeat motif of history.  "I'd argue that America in the early 19th century was largely libertarian and  also largely successful. Now, I am forced to concede that no completely free market (anarcho-capitalist) has ever existed. That doesn't mean it won't or can't. " The federal government has always been there, and wielded tremendous power then as it does now, perhaps most strikingly when it subjugated the Southern states to it's rightful rule. There were so who argued against this form of government at one time in the early conception of the nation, but those leaning libertarian lost, decidedly. The progress of taxation and regulation was of course slow.  Anarcho-capitalism does not work because society is defined by the unified power of it's central authority, without exception: Imperial China by the bureaucracy in the Forbidden city, ancient Egypt through the rites administered by her high priests, The Kingdom of France as inspired by Louis XIV. Because these things existed, their corresponding civilizations succeeded beyond measure. These phenomina do not just randomly crop up out of a crowd- it takes centuries of cultural conditioning to produce even a hint of greatness in a population. It is not something that one does on there own, within the scope of one lifetime as the libertarian would have us believe. For these reasons and more, property rights are meaningless without protection, liberty, unattainable without mutual distrust and mediating bodies to settle dispute, and institutional memory- the hallmark of human intellectual achievement, not possible without the collective conservation of new knowledge. The purpose of the state is the sum of these ideas. 
    1
  158. 1
  159. 1
  160. 1
  161. 1
  162. 1
  163. 1
  164. ScottHigh23 "People are the problem, not the guns" is a very bad argument for a number of reasons.  1. Guns make the problem worse, not better. A.) The "good guy with a gun" is not a phrase substantiated by the evidence- most people with the opportunity to intervene, either choose not to, or freeze up. The NRA boasts a number between 2-2.5 million acts of self defense. However, a study from the Violence Policy Center places that figure closer to 67,740, nothing close to what gun advocates have in mind. So as counter-intuitive as it seems (serious sarcasm here), Guns don't actually save lives. Go figure.  2. Guns came before gun culture. Remove the guns, and the culture dies. The examples you vaguely attempted to rebute are true, despite your incredulity. Countries like Japan, China and most of Europe, have removed guns from their public life, and as a result, have drastically reduced the normative acceptance of guns as valid security option, and thus, gun related homicides with it. This position is strongly supported by multiple studies, including, but not limited to, a 1993 New England Journal of Medicine report, documenting that a household gun increased the risk of a fatal accident by three times.  3. Gun related incidents are psychologically traumatic for even the most well prepared. So even if you think you know how you will respond, say from a training exercise, the result may differ drastically in a real life, uncontrolled, chaotic scenario. Related to this, is the "Weapon Effect", which, to quote the man who coined to term: “Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.” —Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin. Though his findings are disputed, there are numerous examples of unstable persons, acting on impulses with impunity, simply because a gun in their possession made it possible for them to do so. The Turner Diaries for example, has inspired criminal behavior related to a obsession with guns.  Lastly, Human nature is one thing, and as destructive as we might be, our primary nature is constructive- Man has mastered the environment, much of his mind, and imposed his will on his fellow man, creating the great countries of the here and now; erecting monumental marvels, inventing ingenious gadgetry, and inspiring through his creativity and talents, both physical and mental, to the credit of his kind. So to say that guns are somehow a "wild force" outside our control is utter nonsense- We brought it into the world, and we can take it out just as easily. Like the USPS, neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night may stop us doing what need be done- and if we see fit to eradicate the gun from our mists (as has already been done throughout much of the world), I haven't the slightest doubt our efforts shall prevail, for the human spirit is an inconquerable vessel through which anything is possible. 
    1
  165. 1
  166. 1
  167. gainmelk France being my beloved home, I am mortified by the acts perpetrated against her.  But to one line in particular, I must object vehemently; "After all, we are all responsible for our own safety, regardless of where we live."  It is the State of whichever country we owe allegiance to that is chiefly responsible for the protection of it's Citizenry, and unfortunately, the police here failed us, but passing the burden on to the average Joe isn't about to make things better, and I stand by the data when saying you would see an increase as guns fill cabinet draws and line the pockets of the public, in violent and accidental crime, when normal people take it upon themselves to conduct their own self-defense and pursue vigilante justice.  As policing training, surveillance technology, and education improves, so to will the decline of gun violence, and indeed, the need for guns on both sides- Civil and Criminal- decline.  What is important to remember is that guns are capable of a great deal more than most minds can handle- the speed and ease at which one may execute one's will alone is cause for great concern, and the same sort of "empowerment" that it gives people to perhaps do good, is more often than not, misplaced, and dangerous. Guns are by design, intended to kill, and they do it very well. If they weren't and it wasn't a problem, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  As it stands today, we have access to military handy-downs that we treat like toys, and the only thing worse than an evil army, is when the public thinks and acts like one. I'd much rather stare down the barrel of the State, and accept certain doom, then be thrown to a mob who's blood lust knows no end. 
    1
  168. 1
  169. 1
  170. Joseph Keenan You lost me when you said "the job of a mob". A mob is a mindless, meaningless rampage which has no place in civilized society.  And who said I supported the methods of the french revolution? I'm not even sure why you brought that up or what it has to do with.. The tribes of the Goths and Franks were a mob. The word "Berserk" for example, comes from Nordic tribes that would enter a fit of rage, possibly aided by hallucinogenic drugs according to some historians, who seemed to posses no sense of self preservation, and who's savagery was unparalleled- A mob mentality if I ever knew one. Refer to the "Sacking of Rome" for additional proof of my point.  Rebirth? Civilization is an everlasting wellspring from and through which it is eternal sustained. Society by it's nature, seeks stability and tranquility whenever and wherever it is possible. It is in no need for a "restart button" as you so grotesquely suggest.  What did the barbarians of Europe conclude upon conquering Roman? That they were much worse for wear without her. In fact, they regretted it almost immediately. It turns out life without lasting infrastructure, market economies, and sophisticated bureaucracies to tend to people's every need and whim, is'nt all it's cracked up to be.  So what did they do? Well at just about the exact moment the last Roman bleed out, they went about rebuilding Rome in whatever crude fashion they could pass off as "Romanesque", culminating in the great Empires of Europe some thousand years later, who paid homage In both form and function, to the Romans, which is evidenced by the architecture, art, and languages- not the cultural products of the Nords, Franks, or Goths mind you- abundant throughout the continent to this day. 
    1
  171. 1
  172. 1
  173. 1
  174. 1
  175. 1
  176. 1
  177. atomgonuclear I take your point however, I think you are limiting the options available to us in the 21st century. Monitoring and surveillance equipment, facial recognition software that is beginning to be able to detect and recognize emotional expression (such as nervousness), as well as chemical detection devices (that can scan for specific types of radiation, gun powder residue, and so on) coupled with diligent record keeping of known and suspected criminals/terrorists are just a few of the advances that make crime prevention possible in the hands of a strong state.  The problem is a question of scale not implementation- these methods are already standard practice for the likes of the FBI and CIA and internationally in most first world intelligence services. The only downside is the cost, which is why these technologies remain relegated and apply only to a small, but growing portion of the population.  And with the advent of Drones, I suspect "personnel/personal-policing" will be made obsolete by a fleet of machines who do not share man's prejudices and susceptibility to error.  Now that I finished discussing my methods, it is important to address the fact that guns have not been shown to help in the case of a home invasion / rape: Findings from  John-Hopkins Center for Gun Policy Research have revealed that Women who lived in a home with a gun are three times more likely to be shot themselves in this scenario then had they no gun at all. This has much to do with the fact that you are much more likely to be the victim of a crime of someone you know then a stranger, and if that someone you know knows where your gun is, the chances of it ended up in your hands is negligible, especially if the assailant is a man who can physically overpower you even if you do. So not only do guns make it not easier to protect yourself, they actually ADD to the danger of the situation. In light of the overwhelming data that shows this trend, it would be irresponsible to recommend a gun to anyone based solely on the off-chance it "might" help, when we know it almost certainly will make things worse. 
    1
  178. 1
  179. 1
  180. 1
  181. 1
  182. 1
  183. 1
  184. 1
  185. 1
  186. 1
  187. 1
  188. 1
  189. 1
  190. 1
  191. 1
  192. 1
  193. 1
  194. 1
  195. 1
  196. 1
  197. 1
  198. 1
  199. 1
  200. 1
  201. 1
  202. 1
  203. 1
  204. 1
  205. 1
  206. 1
  207. 1
  208. 1
  209. Mirza Borogovac Most of your answers are satisfactory, however there is one assumption I would bring up that overlaps a couple points: What makes Bitcoin safe?  Philosophies differ, and what i've found interacting with Americans and their financial attitudes is that they always prefer high risk, high rewards, to maintaining a strong capital base with gradual, minimal returns, the latter of which I subscribe to myself.  To illustrate my point with a concrete, micro-economic example, try and sell me on bitcoin if you will. Because from where I stand, with lets say upwards of 250,000 dollars, I can safely sit on that money knowing it is ensured by the FDIC. I can put the rest in Index's and annuities and make interest without great concern. Now this is no guarantee that the  price of goods and services external to my capital will not increase beyond my possible purchasing power, but I am reasonably certain any government interested in it's own self-preservation will subsidize food and other basic necessities to keep their prices in an affordable range, at least until it runs out of money, which is a highly unlikely scenario, as any and every other financial institution will have run out of funds long before the government coffers run dry. The basic principle of my position is that any alternative medium of exchange will always be secondary in nature to that offered by the government. It's simple hierarchy: Government is the only legal entity that can force parties to honor their contracts- through violence and/or detention if that becomes the only option- which is why banks have incentive to favor and follow government initiatives, and so long as the store of wealth among the rich, and the need for loans among the poor continues, banks will be favored by the citizenry. By the reverse, if citzens seek these services, they will go to banks where government currency will be the primary/popular medium of exchange, with the peace of mind that the courts will protect their investments in the worst case. I hope this exacerbated exposition makes my perspective clear. 
    1
  210. 1
  211. 1
  212. 1
  213. 1
  214. 1
  215. 1
  216. Kim Rollo Name a currency based on faith that has failed. I honestly don't know enough about the history of money to know, so If it's happened, i'll look it up on a case by case basis and address it then and only then.  To be clear, that is only an expression. What we actually mean when we say that "money is based on faith" is that, when I go to Starbucks and hand the Barrista a Jackson, I have faith, that he or she will hand me my mocha in return. What we have faith in is not the money itself, but in 1. the persons with whom we individually interact, and their faith in a 2. system of reciprocity we call the economy and the 3. role currency plays in that domain, namely that it will be accepted as value, in the absence of cumbersome and irregular forms of intrinsic value, such as heavy and scarce gold, or disobedient and/or undesired goats.   When those elements unite, a healthy market is made possible.  And this is just a side note not entirely relevant here, but faith is actually an incredibly stable force in history. Ancient Egypt is the most famous example: artistically, political, socially, and economically it remained EXACTLY THE SAME for three thousand years. When Herodotus visited the Land of the Nile, he remarked that the people who lived there where the most pious he had ever come across. Catholicism filed the power vacuum of the Roman Empire and similarly maintained an era of continuous "sameness" for centuries, by forcing conformity and strict observance of scriptural dictates.The Ancestral Worship of Ancient China, passed on from generation to generation, a loyal lineage of denizens who honored their descendants by respecting millennial old traditions that is the hallmark of Chinese Confucian collectivism to this day.
    1
  217. 1
  218. 1
  219. 1
  220. 1
  221. 1
  222. 1
  223. 1
  224. 1
  225. 1
  226. 1
  227. 1
  228. 1
  229. 1
  230. 1
  231. 1
  232. 1
  233. 1
  234. 1
  235. 1
  236. 1
  237. 1
  238. Mirza Borogovac Good answers overall, with a couple caveats if you don't mind. I'm pretty tired but here are some of my thoughts. "Governments can easily run out of money, and be unable to borrow. Then they would start printing money which is why there would be a hyperinflation in the first place." I would challenge this, especially using your example of the Greece/Germany relation. I think the reason they are unable to borrow because they are presumed the guilty party- which just means Europe, with good reason, holds the Greek Government responsible for fudging the books, and leading the European Union to believe they were solvent. Here it's just a matter of international law, but when were talking about world powers, which I recognize as being the five members of the Security Council, with the addition of Japan and Germany. These countries have within their means, through central control, the ability to redirect productivity as needed to prevent and handle crisis as needed, using a multiplicity of specialists, the latest technologies, communication and coordination on a scale only government can accomplish, and lasting infrastructure that the private sector just doesn't have access to. That is how they are able to handle food shortages, droughts, and over consumption of oil. Which they do through major projects like the Hoover Dam, rationing as was done during WWII and during the 80's. Additionally, governments usually hoard a large store of natural resources and money for a "rainy day" like the US's oil reserve, or how China saves roughly 70% of everything dollar they make annually. All these facts put government into a class all it's own. I prefer political theory to economics and bitcoin presents a fascinating cross-pollination between the two which are sure to have vast implications for both fields of study. 
    1
  239. 1
  240. 1
  241. 1
  242. 1
  243. 1
  244. 1
  245. 1
  246. 1
  247. 1
  248. 1
  249. 1
  250. 1
  251. 1
  252. Mirza Borogovac "Problem with bitcoin is that you do not have the knowledge to understand the information that is freely available to you." Me and everyone else, as you have yet to answer my original questions, under the auspice that it is "too technical".  "Your understanding of situation and how you choose to label things does not change the reality of things." That is not an answer to anything, just a empty accusation of ignorance. If I have mischaracterized Bitcoin, you had and still have, the opportunity to correct me. Come back with substance not slander.  "Just because sometimes is not localized and is autonomous that does not mean that it is not well defined and well understood."  Then Define it. Here, i'll get you started: Bank (noun, middle English): "A bank is a financial intermediary and money creator that creates money by lending money to a borrower, thereby creating a corresponding deposit on the bank's balance sheet." See that definition was not hard for me to understand. Now you try: Bitcoin (?): "?"  "You seem to imply that you have to understand every product and process that you use."  No... You may have inferred it, but I certainly did not imply it.  I allege only that the control of Bitcoin is dubious and therefore suspect. You seem to be under the naive impression that Bitcoin is beyond the realm of human intervention. Earlier you admitted this possibility though conditioned it was "contrived". It isn't.  "The fact that there is risk in investing does not mean that a risky investment is not legitimate investment."  Never said it was illegitimate, only that it can 1.) never reach the status of national currency and 2.) This predicated on 1.), it cannot be trusted because it isn't backed by an institution that can be persecuted for wrongdoing. You cannot sue a program, you can only sue it's author(s)  In fact, the true identity of Bitcoin creator remains hidden for I suspect this very reason. Adding cause for concern, not detracting from it.  "So then you should use something even if you do not understand it?" You should use what you trust, not what you have faith in, and while people use the latter expression to describe money, money has "social standing" spanning decades if were talking about the dollar, which adds credence to it's acceptance. Doesn't mean you shouldn't stay informed. Open the paper, follow trends, make wise decisions. Bitcoin's current, brief track history only adds fuel to suspicion.  "I am not sure, but I seem to recall some sort of banking crisis back in 2007. Must not have been that important." Fair point, but that was because Banks, aided by government deregulation made irresponsible investments. As a counter-example of how government should operate, I would refer you to Iceland's handle of the Crisis, which is exactly the kind state-based model I am supporting.  The last statement is anarchist nonsense. Banks are bad because Wall Street and Silicon Valley culture is degenerate. Bitcoin isn't the opposite of banking, it's just another part of the problem. For the record I have most of my money in a Credit Union, the only financial institution I would recommend in good conscience.  
    1
  253. 1
  254. Charlie Mopps I'm still not sure how adopting Bitcoin makes things easier/cheaper. Yes, getting those middle men out of the way would be nice I guess, but 1.) Everyone lives in lives in a place under the jurisdiction of some government, thats unavoidable, and most people have an account with a major bank capable of international transfer. All you're avoiding are higher transfer fees. Bitcoin charges 1% Banks charge 4-5%. If it becomes more popular, I haven't the slightest doubt this fee will increase to be on par with Banks. OR Banks will drop theirs to be competitive, and as it grows- if it grows, government regulation will increase. The main reason the EU has not regulated it so far, is just a matter of size, and the fact that they have a lot more pressing financial troubles to deal with.  Furthermore, as the value of bitcoin fluctuates as dramatically as it does, your more likely to loose money (the longer you wait between purchases) then what you pay in fees to a Bank.  Bitcoins "freedom" is only a function of it's youth and size. The older and larger any attractive investment becomes, the more we will want to control it. That is human nature.  btw, people don't have a problem with expensive shipping fees when it comes to gold and silver, despite the fact those are not in the monetary mainstream anymore. This is for the same reason that a 15 cent can of coke, albeit in bulk, is worth shipping over seas: because people are willing to buy it for more. Cash isn't going any where. Many small business and private citizens still prefer this, and always will, because you can only manipulate it's value, but once it's in my possession, you can't do anything to it save to steal it, assuming you know I have it in the first place. 
    1
  255. 1
  256. Mirza Borogovac  "However categories are approximations for your understanding and not defining characteristics of existing things. Your argument was basically: 1) birds fly, 2) penguins are birds 3) therefore penguins fly." Fine. This too is a characterization btw, and could fall well within the category of the strawman fallacy if I bothered to match my argument up with your analogy, but I'm not nearly interested enough, so i'll just leave it at that.  ""what is to prevent anyone from declaring themselves to be a bank and then lending money that they they create."  LOL the Law, end of story. So no, I wouldn't have. Which is why they're different to begin with, and why the false-dichotomy is the sustained. FYI: Banks require licensing. Some Legislators have considered this a requirement for bitcoin sites, but so far haven't acted on it.  "But you can trust a program to do exactly what it is programmed to do"  Circular argument- you only trust it because you trust the programmer OR you understand the program. Which you have admitted to the contrary.  "If you have access to it's source code and you know how to read it and compile it, than what is there to not trust?" I suppose that would be fine. However this would mean that bitcoin is a trustworthy service for those with the privileged education of knowing how to use it. To repeat my argument, personalized banking overcomes this issue.  ". You either prove something to be true yourself or you take it on faith. "  No idea what this means. You can't prove ANYTHING to be true, unless you think your Descartes, in which case you believe in yourself. Scientific proof requires peer-reviewed consensus, you can't do it alone in your basement. But you can trust things on intuition which is a pretty powerful force in the mind. A recent study I wish I had on hand, and if you really want i'm sure I can dig up, suggests that you judge a face on how trustworthy it is in less than 35 milloseconds of first seeing it, and that your first impression is often your best. So if you walk into a bank, and think to yourself these people seem trustworthy, chances are you are correct. There is no face to bitcoin, no values to speak of. That is both a flaw and something in it's favor. I think we just fall on different sides of that fence.  "Yes those things help but they are just some of the factors to consider and not a "definite proof" in themselves." Sure, they help, what more would you have me do? What sort of "ideal proof" were you hoping for?  Your argument hinges on the fact that Bitcoin is "divorced" from imperfect beings, and is therefore unnameable to human influence. The former is partially true: it is not a closed, impenetrable system as you have portrayed it as thus far. How bitcoin is used, and what it enables it's users to use it as, is just as important as what it is, and anecdotal evidence, including Bitcoin's more prominent supports, does not reflect well on the digital currency. 
    1
  257. 1
  258. 1
  259. 1
  260. 1
  261. 1
  262. 1
  263. 1
  264. 1
  265. 1
  266. 1
  267. 1
  268. 1
  269. 1
  270. 1
  271. 1
  272. 1
  273. 1
  274. 1
  275. 1
  276. 1
  277. 1
  278. 1
  279. 1
  280. 1
  281. 1
  282. 1
  283. 1
  284. 1
  285. 1
  286. 1
  287. 1
  288. 1
  289. 1
  290. 1
  291. 1
  292. 1
  293. 1
  294. 1
  295. 1
  296. 1
  297. 1
  298. 1
  299. 1
  300. 1
  301. 1
  302. 1
  303. 1
  304. 1
  305. 1
  306. 1
  307. 1
  308. 1
  309. 1
  310. 1
  311. 1
  312. 1
  313. 1
  314. 1
  315. 1
  316. 1
  317. 1
  318. 1
  319. 1
  320. 1
  321. 1
  322. 1
  323. 1
  324. 1
  325. 1
  326. 1
  327. 1
  328. 1
  329. 1
  330. 1
  331. 1
  332. 1
  333. 1
  334. 1
  335. 1
  336. 1
  337. 1
  338. 1
  339. 1
  340. 1
  341. 1
  342. 1
  343. 1
  344. 1
  345. 1
  346. 1
  347. 1
  348. 1
  349. 1
  350. 1
  351. 1
  352. 1
  353. 1
  354. 1
  355. 1
  356. 1
  357. 1
  358. 1
  359. 1
  360. 1
  361. 1
  362. 1
  363. 1
  364. 1
  365. 1
  366. 1
  367. 1
  368. 1
  369. 1
  370. 1
  371. 1
  372. 1
  373. 1
  374. 1
  375. 1
  376. 1
  377. 1
  378. 1
  379. 1
  380. 1
  381. 1
  382. 1
  383. 1
  384. 1
  385. 1
  386. 1
  387. 1
  388. 1
  389. 1
  390. 1
  391. 1
  392. 1
  393. 1
  394. 1
  395. 1
  396. 1
  397. 1
  398. 1
  399. 1
  400. 1
  401. 1
  402. 1
  403. 1
  404. 1
  405. 1
  406. 1
  407. 1
  408. 1
  409. 1
  410. 1
  411. 1
  412. 1
  413. 1
  414. 1
  415. 1
  416. 1
  417. 1
  418. 1
  419. 1
  420. 1
  421. 1
  422. 1
  423. 1
  424. 1
  425. 1
  426. 1
  427. 1
  428. 1
  429. 1
  430. 1
  431. 1
  432. 1
  433. 1
  434. 1
  435. 1
  436. 1
  437. 1
  438. 1
  439. 1
  440. 1
  441. 1
  442. 1
  443. 1
  444. 1
  445. 1
  446. 1
  447. 1
  448. 1
  449. 1
  450. 1
  451. 1
  452. 1
  453. 1
  454. 1
  455. 1
  456. 1
  457. 1
  458. 1
  459. 1
  460. 1
  461. 1
  462. 1
  463. 1
  464. 1
  465. 1
  466. 1
  467. 1
  468. 1
  469. 1
  470. 1
  471. 1
  472. 1
  473. 1
  474. 1
  475. 1
  476. 1
  477. 1
  478. 1
  479. 1
  480. 1
  481. 1
  482. 1
  483. 1
  484. 1
  485. 1
  486. 1
  487. 1
  488. 1
  489. 1
  490. 1
  491. 1
  492. 1
  493. 1
  494. 1
  495. 1
  496. 1
  497. 1
  498. 1
  499. 1
  500. 1
  501. 1
  502. 1
  503. 1
  504. 1
  505. 1
  506. 1
  507. 1
  508. 1
  509. 1
  510. 1
  511. 1
  512. 1
  513. 1
  514. 1
  515. 1
  516. 1
  517. 1
  518. 1
  519. 1
  520. 1
  521. 1
  522. 1
  523. 1
  524. 1
  525. 1
  526. 1
  527. 1
  528. 1
  529. 1
  530. 1
  531. 1
  532. 1
  533. 1
  534. 1
  535. 1
  536. 1
  537. 1
  538. 1
  539. 1
  540. 1
  541. 1
  542. 1
  543. 1
  544. 1
  545. 1
  546. 1
  547. 1
  548. 1
  549. 1
  550. 1
  551. 1
  552. 1
  553. 1
  554. 1
  555. 1
  556. 1
  557. 1
  558. 1
  559. 1
  560. 1
  561. 1
  562. 1
  563. 1
  564. 1
  565. 1
  566. 1
  567. 1
  568. 1
  569. 1
  570. 1
  571. 1
  572. 1
  573. 1
  574. 1
  575. 1
  576. 1
  577. 1
  578. 1
  579. 1
  580. 1
  581. 1
  582. 1
  583. 1
  584. 1
  585. 1
  586. 1
  587. 1
  588. 1
  589. 1
  590. 1
  591. 1
  592. 1
  593. 1
  594. 1
  595. 1
  596. 1
  597. 1
  598. 1
  599. 1
  600. 1
  601. 1
  602. 1
  603. 1
  604. 1
  605. 1
  606. 1
  607. 1
  608. 1
  609. 1
  610. 1
  611. 1
  612. 1
  613. 1
  614. 1
  615. 1
  616. 1
  617. 1
  618. 1
  619. 1
  620. 1
  621. 1
  622. 1
  623. 1
  624. 1
  625. 1
  626. 1
  627. 1
  628. 1
  629. 1
  630. 1
  631. 1
  632. 1
  633. 1
  634. 1
  635. 1
  636. 1
  637. 1
  638. 1
  639. 1
  640. 1
  641. 1
  642. 1
  643. 1
  644. 1
  645. 1
  646. 1
  647. 1
  648. 1
  649. 1
  650. 1
  651. 1
  652. 1
  653. 1