That is complete horseshit and you know it. I just made a statement and a decision. He's free to disagree with my assessment, and I'm free to not give a fuck. We're both free to move on with our lives.
But then you decide to ride in on your High Horse to save the day!
Earlier you reprimanded me for saying "shut up", which is just fucking retarded to begin with, and you're engaging in a double standard because his posts were clearly not "substantive" (and thus against the arbitrarily enforced rules).
Just so you know, whenever you ban someone for calling things as they are, and trying to get people think for themselves, you're essentially supporting your own enslavement.
You're probably a psychopath yourself, of course, but most likely not protected from the potentially perpetual tyranny the world will slide into if sanity doesn't spread widely enough.
> it makes more sense to barter something that's fungible, which is why most currencies in history have been some kind of commodity, like some form of metal, and scarce, like some form of precious metal.
Yes, gold is a great medium of exchange because of its properties.
> Only recently have we been able to create scarcity out of other materials like paper by putting unique identifier marks on them, so that only a small percentage of the paper supply can be money and only the government has (or tries to, anyway) the technology to mark paper with those identifiers (i.e. printing money)
But fiat currencies are not, mainly because they're controlled and printed at will by governments, which means they're simply not a safe store of value.
We use fiat currencies purely because governments force us to, and it's a massive detriment to our prosperity (because there would be no inflation or bubbles with sound money).
I can't tell what you're trying to convey. You may just be trolling, of course.
"The rule of law" sounds good and all, but you have to differentiate between laws that are only detrimental to us, and laws that would actually correspond to morals: 1) Don't aggress against others, 2) Don't violate others' property rights.. and those are the only two laws you need.
Now we've got like hundreds of thousands of laws, and they're mostly just meant to benefit the ruling class (and their cronies) at our expense.
The "If You Were King" video clearly shows there is no such thing as a "good ruler". That applies to governments too (because politicians are our modern-day rulers).
That's right, and so are lawyers, accountants, and any other profession whose existence is predicated on the government making us jump through pointless bullshit hoops.
> One thousand times NO. The rule of law applies to all equally.
This is just your cognitive dissonance talking.
You can say "NO" a million times, but Bradley Manning was just imprisoned without trial (and tortured for months.. years?), even though Habeas Corpus was supposed to apply.
> The president murders their spouse, expect them to be charged.
Why would you expect that? If the president murders his spouse, he's probably reasonably sure he'll get away with it. Otherwise he probably wouldn't.
> By definition the rule of law applies to all.
That's what we're trained to believe.. so many TV shows and movies show police officers risking their lives in fighting crime and courts being fair and just and all, but have you ever dealt with the court system? Did you get justice?
People are blackmailed into accepting a punishment for something they haven't done, to avoid the potential life-ruining punishment for whatever outrageous bullshit they're charged with (that they haven't done either).
Look, the NSA as an organization, as a whole, is blatantly violating the Constitution, which is supposedly the most sacrosanct law of the nation.
The fact that they don't care about what laws say doesn't get any clearer than that.
The fact that no one from NSA has gone to jail for the NSA violating the Constitution shows.. well, pretty much that the government doesn't bother punishing itself for violating its own laws.
To be fair, that would be kind of silly, after all.
You're right to point out that the NSA doesn't give a fuck about the law, but..
> the rule of law is the point, it is a necessary condition for a civilized society and MOST ESPECIALLY the government needs to be bound by it
You seem to be overlooking the fact that the organization that makes the laws is, by definition, above them. The government is not bound by its own laws any more than a King or Emperor by his, back in the day.
The reason why you see crimes go unpunished is that people with political power and/or connections are effectively above the law.
Payment fees are high and plentiful because banks are a state-maintained cartel everywhere.
For example, it's outrageous that they charge us something like $30 - $60 for a wire transfer, but that's what happens when they can charge just about whatever the fuck they want, because there is no competition!
> That fallacy is called ipse dixit, roughly translated as I say so, therefore it is.
That's not what happened though. I pointed out that bureaucrats aren't prudent when spending other people's money, and that's self-evidently true.
For example, you know would not be prudent with other people's money either, or with $1000 you found on the street.
> And that's the fallacy of the excluded middle. Just because (some) bureaucrats aren't particularly prudent when using our money, it doesn't follow that (as you alleged before) the free market is always better.
I was hinting at the fact that since everyone uses someone else's money less prudently than his own, using someone else's money results in 'waste' compared to using one's own, and therefore, all public spending results in 'waste'.
So it's clear that the free market actually is 'always better' in that sense. It's better in all other senses too.
For example, you'd be hard pressed to argue that a state-maintained monopoly or cartel is better for us than no such thing.
> I actually happen to think the opposite of the two assertions that you claim constitute my premise.
Quote the two assertions I claimed constitute your premise.
The question is actually based on the false premise that value can be objectively measured/quantified.
In fact, value is purely subjective. In other words, the value of 'Wikipedia consumption' is only what each individual places on it.
For example, someone may find Wikipedia valuable in pursuing his quest for greater knowledge, whereas someone else is completely uninterested in 'consuming' it (and doesn't see Wikipedia as valuable).
In a nutshell, the value of X is its subjectively perceived utility as a means towards an end.
Perhaps more clearly, GDP doesn't distinguish between productive and unproductive activity.
The government could pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in, and that would contribute to the GDP even though it was a complete waste of effort and a net negative considering the opportunity costs.
But then you decide to ride in on your High Horse to save the day!
Earlier you reprimanded me for saying "shut up", which is just fucking retarded to begin with, and you're engaging in a double standard because his posts were clearly not "substantive" (and thus against the arbitrarily enforced rules).
Just so you know, whenever you ban someone for calling things as they are, and trying to get people think for themselves, you're essentially supporting your own enslavement.
You're probably a psychopath yourself, of course, but most likely not protected from the potentially perpetual tyranny the world will slide into if sanity doesn't spread widely enough.