Description

This is the audio of my presentation to the 2018 PFS meeting on Saturday, Sept. 15, 2018.

See More See Less

Subscribe

Leave us a review, comment or subscribe!

Meet the hosts

discussions

  • It appears to me that one of the biggest drawbacks to the current model of cryptocurrencies is the lack of reversibility in transactions. Historically, third parties such as banks have enabled transactions to be reversed, such as refunds or guaranteeing purchases. I think that if cryptocurrencies want to avoid third parties as much as possible, they should adopt a method for reversing transactions for the purpose of dispute resolution. Thoughts?

    Jump to Discussion Post 2 replies
  • Its completely ok to have an opinion. It actually is pretty important. But teachers shouldn’t teach their opinion as the truth. I have to face this behavior everyday at my school in switzerland. As a proud libertarian, i was very shocked as my teacher showed the anticapitalist, enviromentalist movie called “tomorrow”. There were no discussions about the problematic points the movie made. It was taught as the truth. The only truth. The tides turned, as i got to speak to a journalist, who was interviewing me about a political event, i went to. I described my problem and the whole thing got published. Of course it was shortened and the most important points were cut out, because they were probably to “aggressive” . But then (after the article appeared in the newspaper) the leftist/socialist behavior of my teacher disappeared, meaning we stopped watching “tomorrow” and about all the future controversial subject, we held debates with the whole class.   The main point of my little essay is, that we don’t have to make non-neutral-teaching illegal, but expose them with newspapers and television. In switzerland, this works perfectly.

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • For the past few years, police departments have been on something of a power trip in the United States. Only citing the lesser-known instances that come to my mind, cops have assaulted autistic teenagers and murdered unarmed civilians, and were subsequently cleared of all charges and let back on the force. A zealous, dogmatic conservative “fanbase,” alongside a legal system that actively defends police from facing charges of murder, manslaughter, or assault, assures that these men and women never see justice for their actions. It’s awful what police are doing in society, but it’s even worse that they can get off scot-free for it. Of course, most of you already know this. So here’s my question: has any United States representative or senator proposed a bill designed to fight against unjust acquittals or introduce charges that are harder to to be overturned? As an agorist, I’m partially convinced that this has never happened and that anyone who gets elected for public office in this day and age is a vapid authoritarian, but a sliver of hope remains for me somewhere. Have any of you heard of such legislation on a federal level? If not, then what about on a state level?

    Jump to Discussion Post 1 reply
  • Its seems they always skip over the issue. There is always this refusal to acknowledge or “give-in” in to the reality of what its happening on their part Does anyone know why this mentality exists? Is there anyway to stop it? Or try to get through to these people that’s its tyranny that is the enemy?

    Jump to Discussion Post 11 replies
  • “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” — The Declaration of Independence.   More often than not, I see many people interpret these particular 5 words with a biological context, however I have never understood how people come to apply such meaning to those words when the scope of the document pertains to law.  Thus, what they’re referencing is equality of law, not biological equality or economical equality.   In other words, the axiom they assert, “All men are created equal,” recognizes that there is a natural order to life, one they assume is the product of a creator, and that the creator applies this order to all men equally.   What this implies is that all titles among men are the product of men, not natural order.  In other words, they’re disputing the divine right of kings — which is what was used to give the monarchy legitimacy.  They, instead, assert that government derives specific powers from the consent of the governed. Those powers pertaining to ‘just’ powers, i.e. powers of justice.  The role of government is to provide justice.  Hence, in the beginning of their syllogism, “All men are created equal,” they were referencing a legal maxim sometimes stated as:  Equality before the law is mandatory and paramount.  

    Jump to Discussion Post 25 replies