Kwakkelde Kwak Posted February 28, 2014 Share Posted February 28, 2014 Back on topic.... Mt. Gox Files for Protection Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I could reply from a sceptic point of view and say those loans were given with the reason to make a quick buck. Sell loans you can't earn back, make them look pretty or hide them in a package then quickly sell them on, losing the risk and keeping the commission. In that case the government insurance makes no difference since the initial bank never used it, nor did the second or the third. Good government regulation could have prevented this. I don't have any in depth knowledge of the US housing market, but plenty of economists see deregulation as "contributing to the crisis". That's not the point though. The point is you give one example to back up a claim that "In most cases, the regulations distort the market and push investments into areas that are unsustainable, hence causing a crash." I'm sure you can come up with plenty more, but I can come up with countless examples where free market simply does not work. It's not that black and white. Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Although, I think you are thinking about the transaction wrong. The value of bitcoin is based on other currencies. So, if you are billing some1 30 days later, you are billing them in the amount of dollars, or whatever currency you are using, compared to bitcoins. So, if the value of a bitcoin changes, you are still billing them for the dollar, or whatever currency. It is just the total amount of bitcoins that changes. This is why most merchants cash out their bitcoins as soon as they recieve them, to make sure they get the full amount back in their normal currency. Clearly I am misunderstanding, then. If I bill someone in £s and exhange any bitcoins I receive for pounds as soon as I receive them, what's the advantage to anyone of my accepting bitcoins in the first place? I can see it probably saves my overseas customers something on transaction costs as compared with their buying pounds, but are there any other advantages I've missed? The advantages depend on what you are using bitcoins for. Yes, you can avoid a bunch of fees that banks would normally charge, but also taxes, as no1 can really know the transaction took place, if you don't use a payment processing system. It's also about reach. Why would you except American Express? For that same reason, you would except Bitcoins. To have a credit card, the user must have a bank account, the same goes for Paypal. So, bitcoins is an option for all those people that can't get a bank account. My old coder lives in Costa Rica, and had to jump thru tons of hoops to get an american bank account. Heck, in the states, if you owe 1 bank money, and it goes into default, you can't get a bank account at any bank. How screwed up is that? This is how industries control the market and collude together. Bitcoin is a way around all that. Imagine all the people out there that have money to spend, but have a dispute with a bank. I don't ever want to deal with banks, as it is never in my own interest to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Qie Niangao wrote: Presumably because it makes bitcoin advocates feel good about themselves. Which, in fact, isn't a bad reason to do it. The customer is always right, etc. It's just a question of whether there are enough bitcoin afficionados feeling gratified enough to justify the overhead of accepting bitcoin. (And media attention notwithstanding, trade in bitcoin for goods and services is about as popular as bartering pork bellies.) What overhead? When I signed up to accept bitcoins, I clicked 1 button from the business that does all my transactions. Then, I had to create a bitcoin wallet on my pc. Gosh, that was so much harder and more work than ........ sleeping. Oh, no, I hope I can make up the cost of ZERO. Seriously people, I fail to see why so many are so against bitcoins, and yet know NOTHING about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. I agree with both your statements highlighted. However, bitcoin is a different animal (so to speak.) Why? Because I don't want another Bernie Madoff managing my investments. How profitable would a Nigerian Exchange be at pricing bitcoin at $5000USD and comes with all the promises of Mt. Gox? Sure financial rewards can be had .... show me one? Buyer beware! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. Because I bank with a bank that holds a UK banking licence, my deposits, up to a certain level, are guaranteed if the bank becomes insolvent. That is an advantage I enjoy that people whose bitcoin deposits were entrusted to Mt Gox don't have (and is almost certainly one reason why my bank survived the UK banking crisis of 2008-2009, since people like me had no reason to pull out our cash when first the bank ran into difficulties). That seems a considerable advantage to me, and also to the UK economy as a whole, since the consequences of a major high-street bank going under would have been horrific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Storm Clarence wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. I agree with both your statements highlighted. However, bitcoin is a different animal (so to speak.) Why? Because I don't want another Bernie Madoff managing my investments. How profitable would a Nigerian Exchange be at pricing bitcoin at $5000USD and comes with all the promises of Mt. Gox? Sure financial rewards can be had .... show me one? Buyer beware! I'll point out that Bernie did this in a highly regulated market, while dozens of people were complaining to the authorities. They did nothing until it had already collapsed and he couldn't pay any1 anymore. Now, imagine something similar happening with bitcoins. Fraud is fraud and can be prosecuted. No extra regulation needed. Even if you could not sue, you complain on the internet, where every1 else can see it. You make a Youtube video saying this bum scammed me, and create a hash tag. That will do more than government did about Bernie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innula Zenovka Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 But the fact that laws and regulations are sometimes ineffective is no reason to get rid of them. Sometimes medical staff go nuts and murder their patients. The fact that this sometimes happens, despite the best efforts to prevent it of the various bodies that oversee the activities of medical staff, is no reason to throw up your hands and say, "Oh, we'll never stop them. Best let them get on with it". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Innula Zenovka wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. Because I bank with a bank that holds a UK banking licence, my deposits, up to a certain level, are guaranteed if the bank becomes insolvent. That is an advantage I enjoy that people whose bitcoin deposits were entrusted to Mt Gox don't have (and is almost certainly one reason why my bank survived the UK banking crisis of 2008-2009, since people like me had no reason to pull out our cash when first the bank ran into difficulties). That seems a considerable advantage to me, and also to the UK economy as a whole, since the consequences of a major high-street bank going under would have been horrific. Again, thinking in the old way. Those people at MT Gox were morons. If you use bitcoins, you don't need a bank. Your pc is the bank. Heck, a flash drive could be your bank, and you can back that account up as many times as you like. Plus, MT Gox had a bad reputation for a very long time. It was only talked about because it was the first exchange. Other exchanges, which again you don't have to use, have better security features and don't even have access to your keys, so the bitcoins can't be stolen by them, if you chose to save them there, or use the exchange. Just like the free market promises, there are many, many options, and many more coming. To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection, as the people in charge have proven to not be trustworthy. I find it very amusing that people trust their banks. Did any1 notice what happened in Greece? The government, pushed by the IMF, stole the money in the citizen's bank accounts. There is actually a term for this now. When we pay for a private business or banks debts, we call that a Bail Out. When the government just takes the money in your bank account to pay for government employees and programs, it's called a Bail In. Where did those smart people in Greece immediately transfer their money? OMG, into bitcoins, and some of them made a crapload at the same time. Expect to see Bail Ins being used much much more. Also, banks are now talking about negative interest rates. How fricken nutty is that? It's really going to get interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alazarin Mondrian Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 The Bitcoin saga is beginninng to resemble the bad old Ginko Financial saga: The fall of Ginko Financial That turned out swimmingly.... not. FWIW, I'm convinced that cryptocurrencies are here to stay. There will be a few frauds and shakeouts along the way. Whether Bitcoin stays the course is a matter of debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. I wasn't talking about productive, being part of a society is about so much more than that. As I said I can come up with countless examples (which will probably be pointless), but I think child labour is a good one. EDIT I dislike dumping large, boring documents on people as much as I dislike reading them, but you might want to give this a quick look, scroll down to page 11 for an overview. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection That doesn't sound very "new" to me, it sounds medieval at best. It's certainly not the world I am living in and I am glad about that. Have you ever considered the fact that there are people who are not able to protect themselves? Did you consider you could be one of them tomorrow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Storm Clarence Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: Storm Clarence wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. To save some time, give me all the example you will need to convince you. I'm not saying that all regulation is always bad, but most of the time, people can't see or even anticipate the negative consequences of regulations. I agree with both your statements highlighted. However, bitcoin is a different animal (so to speak.) Why? Because I don't want another Bernie Madoff managing my investments. How profitable would a Nigerian Exchange be at pricing bitcoin at $5000USD and comes with all the promises of Mt. Gox? Sure financial rewards can be had .... show me one? Buyer beware! I'll point out that Bernie did this in a highly regulated market, while dozens of people were complaining to the authorities. They did nothing until it had already collapsed and he couldn't pay any1 anymore. Now, imagine something similar happening with bitcoins. Fraud is fraud and can be prosecuted. No extra regulation needed. Even if you could not sue, you complain on the internet, where every1 else can see it. You make a Youtube video saying this bum scammed me, and create a hash tag. That will do more than government did about Bernie. Medhue, we are saying the same thing just saying it differently. My point is that there are better *bets* for the taking in the regulated markets. Why the high risk no reward payout? I can/do manage my investment better. Imo, bitcoin is a buy at 1USD not 1000USD. (convert to Euro's if you so choose.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: Ok then, you give me an example, and I will explain how the regulation is counter productive. I wasn't talking about productive, being part of a society is about so much more than that. As I said I can come up with countless examples (which will probably be pointless), but I think child labour is a good one. EDIT I dislike dumping large, boring documents on people as much as I dislike reading them, but you might want to give this a quick look, scroll down to page 11 for an overview. It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. They have a major incentive to miscalculates the stats. Just go take a look at their accessment of inflation. They even totally changed the inflation markers again, in the last year. It has been changed numerous times, depending on how much the government wants to hide inflation. When any honest person that is actually seeking the truth, compares prices on things people actually need, the inflation is much more than the government reports. Peter goes over some of these government numbers from a year ago and shows how the government understates inflation. It's kind of funny that I would put a Peter Schiff video in a thread about Bitcoins, as Peter is probably 1 of the biggest bashers of cryptocurrencies. Personally, I agree with Peter here about inflation, and I pretty much agree with his view on Bitcoins. That said, I do not agree that crypocurrencies have no value, and I realize the importance of the movement upon the public and the systems that control us. Whether Bitcoins is a bubble, or overvalued is kind of irrelevant. It's the ride that matters. If we are talking about a bubble in housing, this is much different than a bubble in a completely voluntary currency. If nothing else, it's better odds than playing the lotto, and less risky as putting your money in the stock market, with the stock market's potential being far less. I would never put retirement money into bitcoins, as that is what gold is for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: To me, in the new world we are living in, we need to take responsibility for our own protection That doesn't sound very "new" to me, it sounds medieval at best. It's certainly not the world I am living in and I am glad about that. Have you ever considered the fact that there are people who are not able to protect themselves? Did you consider you could be one of them tomorrow? Obviously, I was far too vague for any1 to clearly understand my statement. Sometimes, I write like people can easily follow me, but to them, the stairs are missing steps. When I say "protection", I mean all of the things we should know and understand about everything we do. Most of us walk around eating whatever, and doing whatever without fully understanding the impact this has on our lives. We trust in our government to protect us from pollution, or disseases, or dangerous products, or natural disasters, and so on. We don't realize that by relying on governments to do these things gives us very bad results because the incentives are not properly assigned, as they would be in a completely voluntary system. That said, we also have the internet now, where we can get together and discuss things in detail, and spread good sustainable solutions voluntarily. That is what I meant by "we need to take responsibility for our own protection". I also meant we as families and groups, not as a whole nation, as that is tyranny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. No it's not. Admitting that there can be negative impacts, even to all regulations, is not nearly the same as your claim that regulations are counter productive. It even leaves room for the exact opposite. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. The numbers speak for themselves, they are from 2002 to 2012. It's 2014 now, so there is no question about how high the inflation was. The government doesn't "seem to think it can calculate it accurately" at all. The article clearly states some things can't be directly translated into monetary values. Also, the numbers for both benefits and costs have a huge error margin. Who would have better insight? The office with all the available data, or you with, from what I have read so far, just your opinion (that a free market is the holy grail)? Where's your explanation of how regulation on child labour is counterproductive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 You were clear enough, maybe I wasn't. By medieval I meant the small communities and lack of knowledge, not charging knights and screaming maidens. For some reason you seem to think you can oversee all potential hazards around you, I know I don't. For example, if it wasn't for regulation, your tap water could possibly kill you. You could search all over the internet on how the water came from the sea to your sink, but you will never know what happened behind the water company's fence. With regulations we still can't look over that fence, but at least we know someone does. It's extra protection and protection with a good oversight. Of course with regulations, you can still do your own research. Could you define a group? Is that 328 people? Is that all people in a 20 mile radius? Is it all people on your side of the track? Is it all people you can have a fun night with? What if 51% of the group was not agreeing with you? Would you form a splinter group? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: Medhue Simoni wrote: It's an interesting report to say the least. I giggled a little. It basically admits that there can be significant negative impacts to ALL regulations, which is dang close to what I said. No it's not. Admitting that there can be negative impacts, even to all regulations, is not nearly the same as your claim that regulations are counter productive. It even leaves room for the exact opposite. Where I differ, is the amount of negative impacts. The government seems to think it can calculate it accurately. I do not agree. The numbers speak for themselves, they are from 2002 to 2012. It's 2014 now, so there is no question about how high the inflation was. The government doesn't "seem to think it can calculate it accurately" at all. The article clearly states some things can't be directly translated into monetary values. Also, the numbers for both benefits and costs have a huge error margin. Who would have better insight? The office with all the available data, or you with, from what I have read so far, just your opinion (that a free market is the holy grail)? Where's your explanation of how regulation on child labour is counterproductive? You seem to be making my points for me. The free market is not the holy grail, and this would imply it has some kind of magical power. The free market is akin to the scientific method. Yeah, you could use other methods and possibly come to similar conclusions, but this is the best way. Gosh, you can throw the ball a bit harder than child labor. This should be obvious. When I was a kid, my dad used to take my on calls to repair tires on big semi trucks. The tires were larger than me, but I could still help him with little things and hand him tools. He paid me almost nothing, but I got to spend time with my dad, and I learned alot. Today, he could not bring me along because of child labor laws. The abuse of child labor was not a very large problem in the states. They were isolated incidents. When you restrict children from doing any work at all, you deprive them of the learning experience, and the pay they would receive. When I was young, many kids in the poorer families had to work to help out. By restricting their employment, you are further hurting the poorest families. If you go back and look at what group supported those child labor laws, it was the trade unions. Again, along with minimum wages, the trade unions used the government to further secured their place in the labor market, and restricted any and all forms of competition. As a parent, I think I'm going to care about my child's interests quite a bit more than some government agency and I don't need, nor want, government to get in the way of my child's progress or opportunities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 I'm on my way to bed so will answer tomorrow. In the meantime you should read up on child labor law which still allows you to hand screws and other bits to your dad while he works. Regulation on child labour does not mean children can't do any work, it just means it is regulated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: You were clear enough, maybe I wasn't. By medieval I meant the small communities and lack of knowledge, not charging knights and screaming maidens. For some reason you seem to think you can oversee all potential hazards around you, I know I don't. For example, if it wasn't for regulation, your tap water could possibly kill you. You could search all over the internet on how the water came from the sea to your sink, but you will never know what happened behind the water company's fence. With regulations we still can't look over that fence, but at least we know someone does. It's extra protection and protection with a good oversight. Of course with regulations, you can still do your own research. Could you define a group? Is that 328 people? Is that all people in a 20 mile radius? Is it all people on your side of the track? Is it all people you can have a fun night with? What if 51% of the group was not agreeing with you? Would you form a splinter group? I think you are confused. See, I'm not the 1 saying I can foresee anything, other than, that the government solution is inheritly inefficient, and can not possibly know all the negative consequences, hence leading to a worse outcome than any other solution. It's government that constantly thinks it can know things that are impossible to know. What I, and Hayek, are saying, is that you can not know what the right solutions can be, and it is only the market that can figure that out in the most efficient way, using the least amount of resources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 3, 2014 Share Posted March 3, 2014 Kwakkelde Kwak wrote: I'm on my way to bed so will answer tomorrow. In the meantime you should read up on child labor law which still allows you to hand screws and other bits to your dad while he works. Regulation on child labour does not mean children can't do any work, it just means it is regulated. Differ ages have different restrictions. I'd also argue that, if you want to reduce "child labor abuses", than the biggest contributing factor is poverty. So, if you stop impoverishing people with regulations that only hurt them, you will do quite a bit to eliminate child labor abuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 4, 2014 Share Posted March 4, 2014 Medhue Simoni wrote: You seem to be making my points for me. The free market is not the holy grail, and this would imply it has some kind of magical power. The free market is akin to the scientific method. Yeah, you could use other methods and possibly come to similar conclusions, but this is the best way. The holy grail is mythical, something people believe in without any evidence. The term seems to fit perfectly on how you view the free market. I really don't understand how you can call free market akin to "the scientific method". I have seen all your assumptions, but haven't seen any evidence in anything you write. In science you observe, analyse, then draw conclusions. You skip the middle part of that, if not the first and middle part. Gosh, you can throw the ball a bit harder than child labor. This should be obvious. When I was a kid, my dad used to take my on calls to repair tires on big semi trucks. The tires were larger than me, but I could still help him with little things and hand him tools. He paid me almost nothing, but I got to spend time with my dad, and I learned alot. Today, he could not bring me along because of child labor laws. You already are unable to catch the ball here and I'm not exactly throwing curve balls. According to what you write, something changed between the time you were a kid and present day. Something that would allow you to work then and doesn't allow that anymore. That either means you were handing your father tools before 1938, or that you weren't allowed to do it when you did in the first place (which isn't true), or that you are simply mistaken altogether, since you would still be allowed to do it. What your father wasn't allowed to do, and still isn't, is to employ a child. That doesn't mean he can't take one to work. The abuse of child labor was not a very large problem in the states. They were isolated incidents. When you restrict children from doing any work at all, you deprive them of the learning experience, and the pay they would receive. When I was young, many kids in the poorer families had to work to help out. By restricting their employment, you are further hurting the poorest families. Assuming you weren't handing your father tools around 1935, but around 1980, I hope you are referring to that later period. Before there was any regulation on child labor in the U.S., up to around a century ago, (ab)use of child labor was rampant. Millions of underaged children were working in factories, making 70 hour weeks, losing limbs and missing out on their childhood and education. Of course the extra income was welcomed by the family, but a good education and lively childhood, made possible by (among other regulations) minimum wages for the parents, would most likely provide a much better future for them. Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, give him a fishing rod and he'll eat forever, right? The only reason why you seem to think there was never a big issue with child labor is because it was regulated as long as you can remember. If you go back and look at what group supported those child labor laws, it was the trade unions. Again, along with minimum wages, the trade unions used the government to further secured their place in the labor market, and restricted any and all forms of competition. Why drag unions into this discussion? That's a bit out of the blue, not to mention completely irrelevant. The laws on child labour were pushed by the National Child Labor Committee and The National Consumer League. The reasons were the poor working conditions and lack of education. As a parent, I think I'm going to care about my child's interests quite a bit more than some government agency and I don't need, nor want, government to get in the way of my child's progress or opportunities. Your view is a bit narrow here, maybe you are able to protect your children and make good decisions for them. History shows this isn't the case for a society as a whole. Look at the difference in well being, wealth, and wealth distribution between western countries (where most things are regulated nowadays) and third world countries where pretty much nothing is regulated. Those countries are exploited from abroad and their citizens exploit eachother. I think you are confused. See, I'm not the 1 saying I can foresee anything, other than, that the government solution is inheritly inefficient, and can not possibly know all the negative consequences, hence leading to a worse outcome than any other solution. It's government that constantly thinks it can know things that are impossible to know. What I, and Hayek, are saying, is that you can not know what the right solutions can be, and it is only the market that can figure that out in the most efficient way, using the least amount of resources. That's a classic case of warped logic. So the government cannot foresee the consequences of regulation, yet you and Hayek can foresee the consequences of a total lack of regulation? The one outrules the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 I'm not the 1 believing in magic spells, which are basically laws and regulations. The free market inheritly has regulations, and they are much better than almost any you can come up with. That is the point. The difference is that an educated person can make their own choices. As soon as you artificially distort the market, your choices drop. The major difference between you and I, is that you think using force is valid, and I do not, unless I've/you've been agressed against. Most laws and regulations are completely abitrary. They are just opinions. So, you are forcing other people to adhere to your opinions on what is better, or for their own good. This ideology is extremely dangerous, as it can lead to any kind of evil possibilities, not to mention all the corruption it invites. If you don't allow for arbitrary and excessive rules and regulations, then the politicians have nothing to barter with. The drug laws are a prime example of the corruption that goes on, and how devistating it is to allow for such social controls. Yet, the laws still apply, and people have been put into cages for many decades now, destroying an untold amount of lives. Despite all the evidence about how bad these laws are, we sit here and have to debate with people about how these laws are for our own good. See, you seem to think that ONLY good laws and regulations will be enacted, but the true reality is that the only good laws are those that people adhere to voluntarily, and every1 agrees to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medhue Simoni Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 My point about not being about to go with my dad today is that the tools were dangerous. We used air compressors and air tools. I wasn't just handing him tools. I worked all day with him out on the road. Imagine how tired a 9 year old can get moving around tires that are larger than him. There would be many things for some do gooder to object with. That is the point again. The law is arbitrary and made up of opinions. What if a father wanted to have his son to goto school half the time and work with him the other half? Why is that bad? Because some people have different opinions? Should we really allow people to write laws for our own good? Is it even possible for them to know what is in our interest? Maybe, instead of wasting 12 years of a kid's life trapped in a building full of socialists, we could allow that kid to do some that is actually productive. Heck, now, the government pays, or actually we pay, to waste even more of our kids lives in colleges that give them almost nothing back of any value to any1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwakkelde Kwak Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 So according to your first post we're better off without any laws and according to your second post we would be better off without education? Really? REALLY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Facebook
Instagram
Twitter
YouTube
Flickr
Recommended Posts
Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now