People who go through life experiencing a constant feeling of impending doom that does not dissapate when the claimed causes are shown not to be valid need access to a therapist to about their childhood, not access to public policy.
If they want lifetime support then price your services accordingly and offer that as a option.
Chances are if you give them two quotes, one with your typical policy and another one priced for what they are asking for, they'll choose the one that makes the most sense.
Another problem with your example is that a parent who has failed so drastically that his or her teenager becomes a crack addict is in no way, shape, or form qualified to employ coersion responsibly.
The idea that coersion by parents is sometimes necessary to correct eariler failures of parenting is completely ludicrous because the more extreme of an example you can devise the more it demonstrates the parents are incompetent and therefore the last people who should be allowed to use such a tool.
Let's say you're the parent of a young teenager. You discover that your teenager has started smoking crack cocaine. You have an obligation to take the crack away from that teen and, if necessary, to get them some treatment so they can beat the habit. The teen is not going to like that -- it will happen against his or her will. You had to resort to coercion because self-destruction cannot be reasoned with.
It's easy to justify statements like "some coercion is necessary" if you accept as a premise that situations like you describe can just materialize out of nowhere, with no prior warning signs and with no way to detect and prevent them from occuring in the first place.
I'm not sure that teenagers who have grown up in a healthy and rational environment starting from good attachment in infancy and growing up with parental relationships which allow them to communicate openly and honestly will all of a sudden turn into crack addicts out of the blue.
Truly good parents don't condition; they reason. They convince their children to obey their rules by showing that their own rules are good enough for them as well. In other words, they are not hypocrites. They correct rather than punish because they don't get angry easily. They see a need to earn respect by being respectable and personally upholding every virtue they expect from their children, rather than demanding respect just-because.
I agree with this definition of good parents. My experience is lacking in real examples of parents who make more than a token effort to live up to that as a standard, however.
I agree that the relationship between children and parents is not a volentary one. Parents choose to create children while children do not choose to be born. Children do not have the ability to support themselves via pure voluntary association due to inherent biological limitations.
This means, however, than any injunctions against coersion are more applicable to children. Parents have even more responsibility to avoid using coersion against their children than they have to avoid using it against other adults because other adults can choose not to associate with them while their children do not have that option.
The situation which you are proposing (which has been the status quo for most of human history) is the very definition of tyranny. You propose because parents have the ability to impose their will on children than they should be allowed to do so without being condemned for taking advantage of the power disparity.
Parents do not own their children. They are trustees who care for children on behalf of those children's future adult selves. In any fair and moral society they would be explicitly accountable to their children for misusing or negelecting this responsibility..
This would, of course, challenge the very foundation of government, and that is exactly why you will never hear a politician say it.
If only it were as easy as merely challenging the foundation of government, the idea that coercion is immoral would have been universally accepted a long time ago.
Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.
That's why it's so hard to spread political freedom - because people have been conditioned from infancy to obey the arbitrary dictates of someone more powerful. They learned from an early age that the rules they were forced to abide by didn't apply to the people making the rules. The existence of governments is merely a side effect of this early conditioning.
I have posted quite a few other sources in this thread besides the one you are talking about. That you haven't looked at them as well doesn't reflect well on your own intellectual honesty.
I never said that bitcoin mining creates value. Again, you're missing the point.
Value is created by the voluntary exchange of products and services. The people who are using Bitcoins to facilitate commerce are the ones creating the value, not the miners.
At the moment this means most of the value comes from Silk Road, but that's not the only industry that can benefit from this technology in the future.
It's not revolutionary. It's a scam so a couple of people get rich whilst idiots waste countless amount of money on electricity and GPUs in vain hope of getting rich. It's a rather run-of-the-mill scam at that.
This must be the source of most of the Bitcoin hate. You're looking at how new currency units are created to the exclusion of all other aspects of the system.
To people who do not have any appreciable skills to sell on the open market would naturally see only this because the concept of being a producer of value that other people want to trade for just doesn't exist in their mental vocabulary.
If you have the ability to produce value that other people want to buy then decentralized currencies potentially can allow you engage in transactions that would otherwise be impossible or unprofitable. That is the real value of Bitcoin.
Governments tend not to like their citizens taking part in transactions that don't have a paper trail.
That is true, however politicians and bureaucrats really like having a way to receive bribes that don't leave a paper trail. Which impulse will win out in the end?
I find it hard to believe a majority of parents hitting infants? The studies I've found show around 1/3 for infants but I believe you would be referring to toddlers (or 4-5 year old children) and older for your statement to be correct (fermat.unh.edu/~mas2/CP36.pdf).
Did you read the paragraph of that paper titled "Minimum estimates"?
Four our of every five people who get infected with smallpox don't die but 20% of them do.
Even though it doesn't kill everybody a person who pointed out the existence of survivors as evidence that smallpox isn't deadly would look like an idiot though.
It's interesting that you choose to use the loaded terms "acceptable to hit infants," when "hit" includes slapping the child's hand in that study, and in order for it to support your coupling of "majority" and "infant" requires quite a stretch on what age constitutes infancy.
The terms I used are accurate, you're calling them "loaded" because I'm not employing the typical euphemisms that people use to downplay the significance of what they are doing. With regards to the definition of a majority I wonder if you noticed the section of the paper dedicated to the sample and to degree it is not representative of the larger population.
I have never seen a parent spank a child who was just barely able to walk (~12 months). This is a put-up-or-shut-up sort of statement that needs some serious evidence to back it up.
So because it doesn't happen in public very often then it must not happen at all? There are numerous references attached to this link.
Spankings, used as a tool by a responsible parent, don't cause psychological trauma.
Do you have a source for this claim? Because we can now see psychological trauma on fMRI machines now so there's no longer any reason to let claims like yours stand without proof, especially when the studies that have been done show the exact opposite of your claim - even "responsible" spanking causes brain damage.
I don't think there's ever going to be a solution to the problem that comes from the government just due to their nature. Bureaucracies have an incentive to manage problems in perpetuity, not solve them.
The solution will happen when individual people stop turning a blind eye and stop making excuses for abusive conduct. The extent to which parents who abuse children can hide behind tradition, religion, law and culture to justify what they do is also the extent to which they avoid suffering negative social ramifications for their behavior. When people stop accepting those excuses as valid the problem will cease.
Another part of the problem is how vague the word "spanking" is. I am not strictly opposed to the idea of spanking but the reasoning, implementation, and severity.
I've been under the grasp of the radical idea that children, who are dependent, less capable and relatively helpless compared to adults should be granted at least the same level of tolerance and respect that we show to other adults. Given that as a starting point I can justify hitting a child more often than I hit adults and I can't think of a single situation in which I would use force of any kind against an adult that could possibly happen with a child.
I have no objection to using force, up to an including deadly force if required, for self defense but can't think of a single situation in which an infant could threaten my life in such a way as to require me to violently retaliate so that pretty much rules out spanking, slapping, or any other kind of violent physical aggression as being grossly unethical.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that Bitinstant described it as a debit card, not a credit card. Those are two very different beasts.
BitCoin is going to issue a credit card right after LiNux opens up a app store and HTTp holds a networking conference.
People who go through life experiencing a constant feeling of impending doom that does not dissapate when the claimed causes are shown not to be valid need access to a therapist to about their childhood, not access to public policy.
Yes it is ironic.
US news media has become so unreliable that I trust them even less than RT and Al Jazeera.
They've actually dropped the $60/month unlimited plan down to $50 recently.
In this context the verb "works" requires an object.
You can't talk meaningfully about whether or not prohibition works unless you specify for whom.
As you pointed out it's working for somebody.
This is only true if your definition of "full-featured" does not include KMS or complete XRandR support.
Just convince the censors to set the Evil bit on all packets returning the HTTP error code for a blocked site.
If they want lifetime support then price your services accordingly and offer that as a option. Chances are if you give them two quotes, one with your typical policy and another one priced for what they are asking for, they'll choose the one that makes the most sense.
Another problem with your example is that a parent who has failed so drastically that his or her teenager becomes a crack addict is in no way, shape, or form qualified to employ coersion responsibly.
The idea that coersion by parents is sometimes necessary to correct eariler failures of parenting is completely ludicrous because the more extreme of an example you can devise the more it demonstrates the parents are incompetent and therefore the last people who should be allowed to use such a tool.
It's easy to justify statements like "some coercion is necessary" if you accept as a premise that situations like you describe can just materialize out of nowhere, with no prior warning signs and with no way to detect and prevent them from occuring in the first place.
I'm not sure that teenagers who have grown up in a healthy and rational environment starting from good attachment in infancy and growing up with parental relationships which allow them to communicate openly and honestly will all of a sudden turn into crack addicts out of the blue.
I agree with this definition of good parents. My experience is lacking in real examples of parents who make more than a token effort to live up to that as a standard, however.
Necessary to achive what, specifically?
I agree that the relationship between children and parents is not a volentary one. Parents choose to create children while children do not choose to be born. Children do not have the ability to support themselves via pure voluntary association due to inherent biological limitations.
This means, however, than any injunctions against coersion are more applicable to children. Parents have even more responsibility to avoid using coersion against their children than they have to avoid using it against other adults because other adults can choose not to associate with them while their children do not have that option.
The situation which you are proposing (which has been the status quo for most of human history) is the very definition of tyranny. You propose because parents have the ability to impose their will on children than they should be allowed to do so without being condemned for taking advantage of the power disparity.
Parents do not own their children. They are trustees who care for children on behalf of those children's future adult selves. In any fair and moral society they would be explicitly accountable to their children for misusing or negelecting this responsibility..
If only it were as easy as merely challenging the foundation of government, the idea that coercion is immoral would have been universally accepted a long time ago.
Stating that coercion is immoral would challenge the very foundation of families, wherein for nearly off human history children have been considered effectively the property of adults.
That's why it's so hard to spread political freedom - because people have been conditioned from infancy to obey the arbitrary dictates of someone more powerful. They learned from an early age that the rules they were forced to abide by didn't apply to the people making the rules. The existence of governments is merely a side effect of this early conditioning.
I have posted quite a few other sources in this thread besides the one you are talking about. That you haven't looked at them as well doesn't reflect well on your own intellectual honesty.
I never said that bitcoin mining creates value. Again, you're missing the point.
Value is created by the voluntary exchange of products and services. The people who are using Bitcoins to facilitate commerce are the ones creating the value, not the miners.
At the moment this means most of the value comes from Silk Road, but that's not the only industry that can benefit from this technology in the future.
This must be the source of most of the Bitcoin hate. You're looking at how new currency units are created to the exclusion of all other aspects of the system.
To people who do not have any appreciable skills to sell on the open market would naturally see only this because the concept of being a producer of value that other people want to trade for just doesn't exist in their mental vocabulary.
If you have the ability to produce value that other people want to buy then decentralized currencies potentially can allow you engage in transactions that would otherwise be impossible or unprofitable. That is the real value of Bitcoin.
That is true, however politicians and bureaucrats really like having a way to receive bribes that don't leave a paper trail. Which impulse will win out in the end?
Did you read the paragraph of that paper titled "Minimum estimates"?
Four our of every five people who get infected with smallpox don't die but 20% of them do.
Even though it doesn't kill everybody a person who pointed out the existence of survivors as evidence that smallpox isn't deadly would look like an idiot though.
The terms I used are accurate, you're calling them "loaded" because I'm not employing the typical euphemisms that people use to downplay the significance of what they are doing. With regards to the definition of a majority I wonder if you noticed the section of the paper dedicated to the sample and to degree it is not representative of the larger population.
So because it doesn't happen in public very often then it must not happen at all? There are numerous references attached to this link.
Do you have a source for this claim? Because we can now see psychological trauma on fMRI machines now so there's no longer any reason to let claims like yours stand without proof, especially when the studies that have been done show the exact opposite of your claim - even "responsible" spanking causes brain damage.
I don't think there's ever going to be a solution to the problem that comes from the government just due to their nature. Bureaucracies have an incentive to manage problems in perpetuity, not solve them.
The solution will happen when individual people stop turning a blind eye and stop making excuses for abusive conduct. The extent to which parents who abuse children can hide behind tradition, religion, law and culture to justify what they do is also the extent to which they avoid suffering negative social ramifications for their behavior. When people stop accepting those excuses as valid the problem will cease.
I've been under the grasp of the radical idea that children, who are dependent, less capable and relatively helpless compared to adults should be granted at least the same level of tolerance and respect that we show to other adults. Given that as a starting point I can justify hitting a child more often than I hit adults and I can't think of a single situation in which I would use force of any kind against an adult that could possibly happen with a child.
I have no objection to using force, up to an including deadly force if required, for self defense but can't think of a single situation in which an infant could threaten my life in such a way as to require me to violently retaliate so that pretty much rules out spanking, slapping, or any other kind of violent physical aggression as being grossly unethical.