other things like bitcoins
Trademarks which might appear localbitcoins on LocalBitcoins. Hi Localbitcoins, thanks for talking about your situation. Also, there is something weird about objecting against government localbitcoins the fact that it imposes alternative will on you whether you like it or not while at the same time trying to use exactly the disputes mechanism to change the society. Disputes with Anonymous Ads. You responded by making a sarcastic remark. I would be surprised if people were keen to become customers of an agency that does not care that the arbiters that disputes the disputes alternative their customers and customers of other agencies alternative be bought.
butterfly labs 10 gh s bitcoin miner review В»
free bitcoin mining software windows
Enter the address and amount you wish to make a payment to. Clear Inputs Clear existing inputs when new inputs are loaded. Once suspended, you will be still able to: Of all the major exchanges these three are currently receiving slightly negative reviews with regards to overbearing KYC verification methods:. Proof of identity — A government issued, unexpired, identity document showing a photograph of the holder, such as:.
bitcoin trading in pakistan
You get notified localbitcoins e-mail. If payment details are provided outside of LocalBitcoins, alternative dispute may be resolved without taking the payment details into consideration. Open Wallet browser based bitcoin wallet Use the form below to open a wallet and begin using this service. To comply with anti-money laundering regulations, we are required to request alternative of identity from you and may disputes an ID verification agency or credit reference agency whose names and addresses will be provided localbitcoins you on request both prior to and following issue of your Card for this purpose localbitcoins who will record that an entry has been made. If we decide to support a disputes cryptocurrency, unless otherwise communicated by us, these Disputes of Service, including any reference to Bitcoin, alternative be equally applied to the new cryptocurrency.
axon synapse bitcoin wikipedia В»
Localbitcoins alternative disputes
Use to pay online e. Have all relevant details of your card visible online, in particular: Click here to read more on how to view the details of your virtual prepaid card. How many types of bitcoin prepaid card shipments are there? We offer two types of deliveries for every physical card order. Delays may occur due to your local delivery services.
Contact details for Card Support team can be found in paragraph The Card does not constitute a checking, savings or other bank account and is not connected in any way to any other account you may have. This is not a credit, charge, or debit card. Your Card is our property and is not transferable to anyone else. Your rights and obligations relating to the use of this Card are subject to this Agreement between you and us; you have no rights against the Association or its affiliates.
If you experience any difficulties in using the Card you should contact the Card Support team. The e-money associated with this Card is provided to you by us, and will be denominated in the base currency which you choose see paragraph The Card remains our property and must be destroyed or returned upon request.
The Card is not transferrable and shall only be used by you strictly in accordance with this Agreement. You agree to provide accurate personal information and to tell us of any changes as soon as possible so that our records remain correct. You should update any changes to your personal information via the profile link at the Website. Your Card limits are governed by your KYC level see paragraph You may increase your limits and Card functionality at any time by providing us your KYC documentation.
You can email a copy of your unexpired government-issued identification and a recent utility bill bearing the same address as your registered address with us to info bitwa. Once these documents are received and verified we will upgrade your KYC level.
Additional verification data may be required. You should ordinarily receive your Card within approximately business days of Application. You should never reveal your PIN to anybody. We will not reveal your PIN to a third party.
Please note we will need to verify your identity to make this change. For security purposes, you must keep your PIN secure and separate from your Card or any record of your Card number. Failure to do so will be treated as gross negligence and will affect your ability to claim any losses and may render you liable for applicable losses to your Account.
When you change your PIN, you must not select a PIN that may be easily guessed, such as a number that a is easily associated with you, such as your telephone number or birth date; b is part of data imprinted on the Card; c consists of the same digits or a sequence of running digits; or d is identical to the previously selected PIN. If, for any reason, a Transaction is processed for an amount greater than the Available Balance on your Card, you must repay us the amount by which the Full Deductible Amount exceeds your Available Balance within 14 days of receiving an invoice from us.
Should you not repay this amount within 14 days of receiving an invoice from us we reserve the right to take all steps necessary, including legal action, to recover any monies outstanding. There are some circumstances where Merchants may require you to have an Available Balance greater than the value of the Transaction you wish to make; however, you will only be charged for the actual and final value of the Transaction you make.
Merchants request this as they may need to access more funds than you initially planned to spend. This is to accommodate any service charge that could be added to your bill.
Examples include on-board cruise or train charges and some in-flight purchases. You can use your Card to pay by taking it to the cashier.
Where we do so, we will give you back your e-money in accordance with paragraph 7 of this Agreement free of redemption fee charge. The amounts credited to your Card for refunds may not be available for up to five 5 days from the date the refund transaction occurs.
We reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to add categories of prohibited transactions by adding such categories either to this Agreement or an acceptable use policy published on the Website.
We will report any suspicious activity to the relevant law enforcement agency. You are prohibited from using your Card in an attempt to abuse, exploit or circumvent the usage restrictions imposed by a Merchant on the services it provides. Only funds from a Payor may be loaded to your Account In case of errors or questions about the funds loaded to your Account, contact your payout provider.
You authorize your Payor and us to recover any funds erroneously added to your Account. If an authorized addition to your Account has an error or if you require additional information regarding funds added or loaded, you must contact your Payor immediately. You should keep track of the amount of funds loaded to your Account. You are responsible for reporting to all applicable government tax authorities, all earnings received and loaded to your Account and the payment of any applicable local, national, or international taxes that apply to such earnings.
You will not be able to use your Card if it has expired. Unless otherwise advised a renewal Card will be sent to you before your existing Card expires. If we decide to do this we will provide you with 30 days notice prior to the expiry of the Card. If you lose your Card or it is stolen you may lose any e-money on it in just the same way as if you lost your wallet.
You will be asked to provide us with your Card Number and some identifying details. You will be liable for any unauthorised Transactions that take place prior to you notifying us and these will reduce your Available Balance. If there is an Available Balance remaining on your Card, we will replace your Card and transfer the last Available Balance on to it, unless we have any reason to believe that the notified incident has been caused by your breach of this Agreement, gross negligence or if it raises reasonable suspicion of fraudulent or improper conduct.
If we replace the Card, the replacement Card will be sent to your address on record. We will use a rate set by the Association. This rate will include a Foreign Exchange Fee see paragraph Exchange rates can fluctuate and they may change between the time a Transaction is made and the time it is deducted from your Available Balance. You must confirm the disputed Transaction in writing, setting out full details of the Transaction, your reasons for disputing it and providing copies of all relevant receipts.
If we are satisfied that you have already made all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute with the relevant Merchant we will attempt to assist you as far as is practicable.
Until our investigation is complete the disputed amount will be unavailable to spend. It may later be deducted from your Account if we receive information that proves that the Transaction was genuine. In the event that you do not hold sufficient funds on your Account to make such a repayment you must repay us the disputed amount immediately upon demand.
By continuing to use the Card after any such changes have taken effect, you are indicating your acceptance of the updated or amended terms and conditions. If you do not wish to be bound by any changes or amendments to this Agreement then you should stop using your Card immediately. In such circumstances you will not be charged a cancellation fee. This does not apply to replacement or additional Cards where the cancellation period for the Card has expired.
We will not charge you for such cancellation. All such disputes shall be between you and such other third party. Some personal data will be necessary for us to provide you with the Card and services under this Agreement. You must notify us immediately of any change of name and address by contacting the Card Support team.
Except as required by law, or in accordance with this agreement, your personal information will not be passed to anyone without your permission. To comply with anti-money laundering regulations, we are required to request evidence of identity from you and may use an ID verification agency or credit reference agency whose names and addresses will be provided to you on request both prior to and following issue of your Card for this purpose and who will record that an entry has been made.
You agree that we can use your personal data in connection with the Card, and the e-money associated with the Card, to contact you about replacement Cards, and to enable us to review, develop and improve our products and services.
This may involve providing your personal data to our affiliates, agents, contractors, distributors, and suppliers and to the Association and its affiliates to process Transactions and for their statistical research and analytical purposes as outlined in our privacy statement.
We may use or share your personal data for marketing purposes. We may also transfer your personal data outside of the EEA to enable you to use the Card while you are travelling and for the performance of our obligations under this Agreement.
Such countries may not offer the same standards of protection for personal data. We may also disclose your personal data as required by law, regulation or any competent authority or agency including to authorities and agencies to investigate possible fraudulent, unlawful or unauthorised activity.
For further information please contact the Card Support team. We will provide you with a copy of our Complaints Procedure upon request. No other compensation schemes exist to cover losses claimed in connection with the Card. You will remain liable until the Card issued to you is cancelled or expires and all sums due under this Agreement have been paid by you in full.
We may assign our rights and benefits at any time without prior written notice to you. We may subcontract any of our obligations under this Agreement. If you need assistance, you can contact the Card Support team at support bitwa. We provide a transparent fee schedule to your low-cost bitcoin card solution:.
These fees depend on the ATM and country. In the vast majority of countries globally you will be charged one fee by our card. In some jurisdiction, e. This additional fee will be added to the total withdrawal amount and our fee will be deducted separately by your card balances. Check out this list of supported countries for the Bitwala Bitcoin prepaid card issuance and delivery: Within one business day your bitcoin debit card will be credited and you can start using the credit for e. What are the limits to my card?
The card usage can be limited due to necessary identity verification. Card limits are still possible after card activation. Our agents will then conduct secondary verification by using documents such as personal ID and address provided by the card applicant. To get the unlimited lifetime card, please verify your identity to become a level 2 user.
As a level 2 user, you have access to the following card usage limits:. I lost my card. How do I order a replacement card? You can order a replacement card in case of loss, lost deliveries, and theft. How do I request for my card to be suspended? Once your card has been suspended, you will not be able to use the card at any store or ATM. In cases of loss or theft, you can suspend your card by following these steps: Login at — https: Once suspended, you will be still able to: Login to the card site View transaction history How do I request for my card to be deleted?
Why am I being charged more for gas station transactions? This is standard practice in the debit card industry. What actually happens is that Bitwala will hold on to a certain amount of funds until we receive the settlement information from the merchant.
Why am I being charged more for my transactions? This includes gas stations and certain restaurants, beauty parlors, barber shops, mail order, hotels, car rentals, and cruise lines.
New Multisig Address Secure multisig address Public keys can be generated in your browser or from your bitcoin client. Address Payment should be made to this address: New HD Address making bip32 even easier Use the form below to generate a master hierarchical deterministic address. Clear Inputs Clear existing inputs when new inputs are loaded. Enter the address and amount you wish to make a payment to.
Enter the details of inputs you wish to spend. Transaction The transaction below has been generated and encoded. Verify transactions and other scripts Enter the raw transaction, redeem script, pubkey, hd address or wif key to convert it into a readable format that can be verified manually. Transaction Script The above script has been decoded Version: This is a replace by fee transaction! WIF key The above wif key has been decoded Address: Public key The above public key has been encoded to its address Address: HD Address The key has been decoded Type.
The default, signs all the inputs and outputs, protecting everything except the signature scripts against modification. There is a problem with one or more of your inputs, please check and try again. Signed transaction The above transaction has been signed: Broadcast Transaction into the bitcoin network Enter your hex encoded bitcoin transaction.
Development Javascript framework, API and more This section is currently under development and is subject to change. About open source bitcoin wallet Version 1.
These simple settings below make coinb. Select which network you'd like to use for key pair generation. You will not be able to automatically broadcast or retreive your unspent outputs from coinb.
Select the network you wish to retreive your unspent inputs from coinb. You are about to send a transaction to the value of 0. Below is a copy of the transaction we tried to submit.
Your browser does not offer camera support. Should a dispute arise please contact the below address for further information Mediator: Which have the convenience that people can always exit the world completely without, you know, dying. A lot of game mechanics changes have been made by the developers to make it possible for small groups of players to annoy said large clans and hopefully somehow break the stalemate.
This is why I think the best and also most feasible way to attempt something like anarcho-capitalism in an already-populated area is not by getting Ron Paul elected and having him suddenly declare all governments invalid, but by a kind of Nozickian process of successive layers of secession. Then maybe Austin gets sick of all the ultra-free market policies of the Republic of Texas and secedes from Texas, etc. In my view then, the most libertarian thing a libertarian can do is not try to get Rand Paul elected president though I will do that too , but to encourage secession for any reason whatsoever I was really hoping Scotland would succeed, even though they were doing so to create what would have likely been a less libertarian polity.
I suspect that if Scotland had been seceding so as to be able to continue to hold chattel slaves, the continued absence of threats of force could not be counted on. In other words, yes, we HAVE come along way since then, though not necessarily in the way you referred to. But that was not the reason Lincoln and the Republicans initially opposed secession. They would have opposed it anyway. The south was right about their right to secede as the slaves would have been right to rebel or secede from the polities that enslaved them , but they were doing it to maintain a corrupt system.
If Texas were to secede today I predict there would be a lot of hand-wringing and threats about dire consequences, the loss of federal money for social security and highways, etc. The secession of the Southern states did not, in itself, lead to any military response by the Federal government. Rather, that happened only after South Carolina started lobbing artillery at a Federal fort Fort Sumter, that is resulting in them capturing it. If Texas seceded today, they would have the same problem: What of the on-going arrangements between that state and the Federal government?
Is all of that going to be re-negotiated? Why would the Federal government agree to re-negotiate with a rebel group other than their demonstrating control of an independent military power that has a chance of winning?
There will be every theoretic reason to intervene to protect the entitlements of the individual, which have been established Federally, and are currently imposed on each State — just as the Federal government intervenes today through the Federal appeals court when an individual State would abridge such rights. The real threat, if Texas did secede and the Federal government recognized the secession would be the loss of legitimacy of its government over the poor, for whom the social contract would have been altered, without negotiation or compensation, quite against their favor.
The legitimacy which Federally-imposed individual rights and Federally-imposed limitations on State government provide to State governments is a very important factor, if you start to consider the question seriously. A civil war is battle for control of a polity, not a battle to leave a polity. The South was trying to form a new, splinter nation, not gain military control over the whole nation.
Do you mean mostly consenting people? As in there was a vote and most of the people were for it? Getting everyone to consent is not going to happen. As the influence of Rome waned, and as trade between cities broke down and the technological level effectively dropped, most of the newly isolated townships dully collapsed from republican governments to local autocracies.
Usually somebody with a lot of money or a lot of friends would suddenly find themselves a big fish in a small pond, and with literally no effective opposition.
So they just, sort of, started making choices. Wait a couple hundred years, and almost everybody is bowing to their Duke. It seems to me that the fall of Rome is exactly the dream scenario for anarcho-anythingists. But the very first thing that happened is that the roads became unsafe, civilization became a local phenomenon, technology collapsed along with trade, and people became terminally beholden to local warlords.
To be fair, I think the ancient world lacked enough economic infrastructure to do anything-capitalism, let alone anarcho-capitalism. Did the Romans have insurance? Easily accessible loans at varying interest rates depending on your credibility?
Health insurance and life insurance go as far back as BC in the western world. Does the expanding western lands of the United States count? Not very capitalist, really. In the ancient world, it was actually still profitable to plunder and conquer. Land was worth more than the people, because the technology of the time did not use people efficiently enough.
Today, war is almost never profitable for the society as a whole, it can be very profitable for some particular interests, such as the army suppliers , trade is a better option. But warlords of the past could gain more from war than from peaceful trade, and so they did.
The pattern can perhaps even be seen today, in a different context. In countries that are not yet firmly established, but have a huge deposit of natural resources, which are a great source of riches if you control it, and require minimal input and coordination, you often end up with a small group taking over and focusing primarily on keeping others out of this source I think that modern Russia and some African countries are the best examples of this.
I would argue that in modern times, war and trade are rarely profitable, and that regulatory capture of abstract turf in an existing industrial structure, pyramid schemes and scientific marketing that takes a statistical rather than an agentic view of its target audience are where almost all profit is derived. When specialists in violence can train to be much more combat-effective than average, and must train nearly full time to maintain that, feudalism is the natural result. Anarchocapitalism needs gunpowder weapons, or a functional equivalent that makes someone with relatively few hours of training combat-effective.
I am fairly sympathetic to the idea that there are technological innovations that are a necessary precursor to the viability of anarchy.
But why should we believe that all the necessary innovations have already been made? Not to mention the rise of the drilled, disciplined, centralized army? One armored and mounted knight would be almost impossible for villagers to bring down without setting up an ambush. One fire-team, with hummvee, is more than a match for 10 guys with hunting rifles and a pickup truck, but probably not for 50, let alone Of course specialists in violence are always more effective than nonspeialists.
The point about gunpowder weapons is that they equalize political power. Thiis has been well understood since the early British republican theorists and is the reason the U. Consitution has a Second Amendment.
It would be really great if the Paris Commune, or maybe better the Revolutions of more palatable for the target demographic were not ignored when discussing the odds of armed revolts success. The probability of success depends on a lot more than weapons — not least the motivation of the government. I tend to think of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as the go-to counterexample.
A population can always be crushed by a larger and better trained force. Even if the odds still favor the oppressor, the economics no longer do. There existed nation states outside Europe or during classical antiquity in Europe, but the transition from the Medieval feudal system to nation states was largely precipitated by the availability of mass-produced reliable guns. If you can mass produce guns, then you can rise massive armies by conscripting peasants, giving them a few months of training and putting a rifle in their hands.
Whoever could rise the largest army got to be king and nobody could really question his power. In medieval warfare, instead, a skilled knight required years of training and expensive specialized equipment horse, sword, chainmail armor, etc. Warriors formed an elite class which claimed noble status and the king had to share his power and land with them in the complex and recursive system of allegiance which is known as feudalism. Eric — I am talking about Europe obviously.
The proximate effect of gunpowder in Europe was to centralize the state even more because walled cities and castles cannot resist gunpowder artillery. So this helped the consolidation of the nation-state relative to local power centers. It did not decentralize the state because disorganized local militias cannot resist centralized states except under very special circumstances.
In the case of the revolution, for example, the British were fighting resistance in a distant colony not essential to the empire in which the local army and the continental army was organized at a national not a local or even state level mind you gets crucial assistance from another absolutist state France.
Also, gunpowder weapons at their inception were hard to manufacture and obtain, particularly artillery, but also guns and ammunition on the scale needed for mass organized battle. This took investment thus state resources were beneficial. That factor has changed somewhat. Your analysis is still deficient, however, because you have failed to notice a very important category of confrontations in which civilian arms are not only adequate but decisive.
I refer to conditions following on the collapse of state legitimacy. We saw several examples of this in the s, most notably during the attempted Communist coup against the first post-Soviet government of Russia. Not only can they do this, there are numerous 20th-century examples. One even the U. If you remain in any doubt about this, ask anyone who lived in Estonia during the decade after the Soviet collapse.
He or she will almost certainly know what you are talking about better than you do, and give you an extremely vivid education in some things you do not presenrtly understand. The collapse of the Soviet Union in the Baltic States was peaceful. The overwhelming majority of decent citizens did not enjoy this anarchism-lite aspect of the transition period.
I think the terrifying lawlessness, injustice and disorder is probably the reason why Russians cling to Putin even now. If a knight can defeat dozens of unarmed peasants, then a fully staffed regime only has to politically enfranchise a tiny fraction of the population knights in order to hold a given territory.
The knights are few enough to managed effectively through a reasonable number of personal relationships. Further, the modern regime incurs more administrative costs, spiraling complexity, and as the edifice of control grows will need to enfranchise more and more specialist professionals and support staff.
The end result is what we see today: Democracies which cannot permit any sector of society to fall outside of the scope of state administration. I think this is precisely right, and it just goes to show that no kind of libertarian society can exist without a reasonably broad basis of support for the ideas behind liberty. For that reason, the mechanism questions are really secondary. No system of government or quasi-government is foolproof or statism-proof.
There are better and worse ones, of course. Potentially, we could have a libertarian absolute hereditary monarchy. But the ease of failure is much greater than, say, republican democracy. Some kind of quasi-anarcho-capitalism might also work, if conditions were just right. But I think the ease of failure is also pretty high. How many people need to be corrupted in order for abuses to occur? How much temptation to corruption does the system encourage among those people, and are there any checks?
Those are the kinds of questions people like James Madison ask, and I believe that it is the essentially correct approach. How is that remotely possible? You are free to enter into any contract you want except all the ones the absolute monarch forbids or the ones she imposes on you with her overwhelming military force?
Nor does it allow for so many other features that are central to a libertarian philosophy. No, in the same sense that a baseball player is not at all a game of baseball. Nonetheless, there is clearly a close connection between baseball players and games of baseball. Likewise, liberatarians seem to favor laissez faire policies on balance. I tend to agree that laissez faire is not great, but I suspect a lot of self-identified libertarians would disagree with both of us on that.
I think this is the crux of the matter. In some sort of libertarian world made up of AIs that work differently than our human minds, I would grant this is possible. A libertarian absolute monarchy really just devolves to something of an oligarchy, where the king is the richest oligarch and therefore has the most power, but not absolute power. I suppose to steel-man your most likely objection, I would grant that absolute monarchies tended to be oligarchies anyway.
But, my further objection would be that, by having a monopoly on use of force, they made any attempts to resist their rule extraordinarily expensive, and that is what multiplied their oligarchic power into an absolute power. Private security forces are hardly central to libertarian philosophy, they are a bolted-on work around by libertarians who want to get rid of the government but are personally attached to the kind of corporate-consumer economy which the government we have promotes. Depends how much your conception of republicanism is inherently democratic.
The early governors were appointed by the senate, and the later ones were appointed either by the senate or by the emperor depending on the province. The senate itself was never democratically elected. Roman citizenship a very exclusive club, although not so much as the senate did confer voting rights in the assemblies, a populist branch of the legislature that persisted with declining relevance throughout much of the imperial period.
By the time the fall was obvious, most of their functionality had been absorbed by the senate and the emperor. Even the Republic had a form that most people today would consider oligarchical, functionally just a complex set of norms that regulated interactions between the elites.
Pretty much the whole of the western Roman Empire the Roman state remaining more or less healthy in the East was conquered and administered by Germanic tribes and their structure of kingship. Local magistrates that usurped more complete sovereign power in those few areas and times when something more like you describe occurred were usually the appointed governors or their descendents, rather than any kind of republican institution.
The decuriate was almost dead at the local level by the late 5th century, let alone the 6th or 7th. Their powers were usually already pretty close to absolute — within the confines of what remained of the rule of law. The collapse into feudalism happened in in the Banal Revolution of the Medieval Era, not in late antiquity. This was the result of the gradual erosion of the authority of the central government of the Carolingian kings and emperors and the gradual accrual of power and legitimacy including hereditary legitimacy to what were originally appointed territorial governing positions.
Explaining why exactly would earn you a PhD in the subject and take a dissertation worthy of the accolade, and suffice to say that I could not really do it any justice.
Some government seeks to control as much of life and economy as possible. Price controls, executions, wars, debasement of the currency in modern parlance: I think another explanation might be less psychological and more game-theoretic. When instead of voting on a proposal I simply donate money towards solving the problem, I also have the third option c I donate, nobody else donates, the problem is not solved, and I still get poorer. To me, this option looks worse than both a and b.
The amount of money I donate to helping the poor scales linearly with the amount of help done. Surely there are particular things that can be done for the poor but only in discrete, possibly very large units — from building a soup kitchen to instituting the social security program — and as such cannot be brought about in a linear fashion. The homeless person needs enough stability in income to make all of the various costs and tradeoffs associated with getting housing make sense.
The need food and medication in addition to housing, and they need a way to occupy their time. If you give to the poor directly, a lot of that money is going to go into useless zero sum status signalling wars. But going from my experience with programs where teens get monetary participation rewards together all at once, they do in fact end up using the money this way. For one thing, even if it is linear, it takes co-ordinated effort to get above measurement error. So my independent contribution will round to zero.
For another, actually breaking a system of poverty probably requires a threshold amount. OTOH, nobody seems to be trying this. If this is your personal experience, I can only say we have very different personal experiences with helping the poor. Why not work more and donate the money to pay other people to do more work than I could have?
I am the person some hypothetical other person is paying to do the work instead. My experience is a constant barrage of issues where my intervention feels like a measurement error next to basic infrastructural changes.
I was going to post that the problem feels like a prisoners dillema, and that is the main advantage that voting has. It feels a lot like riding a bike to work to cut carbon emissions, weaving through a bunch of hummer traffic on the commute. I would rather sign a binding agreement saying that if I pay, so does everybody else. It is much preferable to just giving how much I can afford and being fine with everyone else giving nothing.
This is true regardless of linear scaling. If my ten dollars saves one person starving to death, that is nice, and I am glad to give it even if I the only one who does. I offer you the following deals: The cost to you in both cases is the same, but the benefits of deal 2 are way better! Instead of making a tiny dent, the whole problem gets solved at once, and the cost to you personally is the same. I think the only cases someone would choose to donate to charity over voting for higher taxes are: The real deal is either:.
The money is given to rich cronies, used to imprison the poor, or used to bomb even poorer foreigners. That much is often clear at least in the case of certain countries. As someone who spends a lot of my time working with the poor, I find it very, very hard to believe that the amount of help scales linearly with the money spent on it.
With enough money, you could buy them all textbooks. If you only had a tenth of that money, you could buy a tenth of them textbooks, but would you get a tenth of the impact?
Could you just give the money directly to the poor, and have them use the money effectively in their own interests at a linear rate of effect?
Probably not, a lot of them are just going to sink it into zero sum status signaling wars you know how many of the poor kids I work with have sneakers more expensive than my best shoes? Practically all of them. If you want poor people to have better education, you could pay for one of them to go to a private school, if they need transportation you could buy one a motorcycle.
It would probably be more cost effective to build a good public school in their neighborhood or a good bus system but there is a coordination problem.
Having government do it solves the coordination problem but introduces a principal agent problem. If the government has enough money to build a school or a good bus system why should politicians use that money for these purposes instead of giving seniors cheap drugs or middle class neighborhoods better roads?
After all seniors and middle class drivers vote more than the poor. Thus the question becomes which is a bigger problem, the coordination problem or the principal agent problem? Since we do have governments that is spends trillions of dollars a year but still have bad schools and poor bus systems it would seem like the principal agent problem is bigger.
You take what gives you value and rank in the eyes of your peers where you can get it. A pair of Louboutins is as much status signalling, and probably for the same ends. You sell to those who aspire to such status.
People with a newly acquired plenty of disposable income will want to buy that intangible badge of success and status. What else did they expect to happen? The idea of the nouveau riche buying status goes back a lot longer than Le Bourgeois Gentilhomme.
This argument always makes me incredulous. Why do we already pay so much and yet not even have textbooks? It has nothing to do with the insides of schools.
Child poverty causes low achievement in school regardless of the interior nature of the school. Poor children simply lead different lives than rich children due to their differential access to economic resources. Poor children have worse health and are more likely to experience negative neighborhood effects like exposure to drugs, violence, and crime.
Further, their parents are more likely to work multiple jobs or irregular hours which reduces the amount of time they are able to spend with them. Poverty also increases stress both on the parents and the children.
These are just a few of the consequences of economic inequality, all of which plausibly impact student success at school. Blaming economic inequality is not novel; it appears to have been the commonly held view not long ago.
At some point, the crowd of education reformers bucked this common wisdom. Having watched the documentaries and perused much of the promotional material, this bucking of the economic inequality explanation is almost a point of pride. They represent themselves as so dedicated to educational equality that they refuse to let a little thing like poverty and economic inequality to get in the way; at least, they wont let that operate as an excuse.
Instead, they will roll their sleeves up and fix the problem, poverty or no poverty. The failures of the movement thus far have revealed that doggedness as silly. Attributing the achievement gap to economic inequality is not an excuse or a fatalistic proposition unless you take it to be impossible to reduce economic inequality.
There might presently be political obstacles to achieving that in the United States, but there is no conceptual problem with how to get it done. Countries all across Northern Europe for instance have found ways — mainly through social democratic policies — to reduce economic inequality. Although it would be less politically agreeable, members of the Education Reform Movement serious about actually closing the achievement gap would be wise to organize around projects and campaigns to reduce the economic inequality that generates said gap.
At most you can mitigate it. Assuming, of course, that the cee-oh-two is not swamped by our being in an interglacial period. The amount of CO2 produced prior to is utterly inconsequential compared to the amount produced afterwards. But the effects are exponential. You get a given increase from doubling the amount of cee-oh-two. Increasing it from one to two produces just as much effect as increasing it from thirty-two to sixty-four.
Circa , concentration was about ppm. CO2 forcing is indeed logarithmic in CO2 concentration. See the table here , or this section on Wikipedia. The thing that Mary is missing is that the growth in CO2 has been fast enough to compensate try log-transforming the Mauna Loa data and fitting a straight line to it — then fit a quadratic to the residuals.
Commonly accepted figure is 3. Nearly 5 doublings of CO2 to get as much forcing. What about b-1 the proposal passes, you get taxed, then the agents politicians, bureaucrats, etc. This is the utopian naivety of the masses.
The answer is, I think, the not the Friedmanian answer but the Madisonian answer. There is going to be a government, like it or not. We need a government, like it or not. But we can install various mechanisms, such as democracy and judicial review, that can mostly limit its abuses. Now, of course, the obvious objection is the one Friedman relates in one passage you quoted: How many people in the s were arguing systematically for hardcore libertarianism?
Paine, Jefferson, Adams, Washington all had views on the necessity of state intervention that go beyond libertarianism. No constitution can be self-enforcing. And I must say that, in spite of it all, our constitution has been fairly successful in maintaining as much of our rights as it has over the years not to mention the ways in which it has actually been expanded to protect people not originally protected by it, as well as to reign in abuses by the state governments.
Now you, Scott, appear to have a low regard for the role of ideas in history as causal forces. The Madisonian mechanisms to limit government can work. But even when public sentiment diverges from the minarchist ideal, the slow-to-change mechanisms and judicial checks can do a good deal to reign that sentiment back in.
In any case, I think it has a lot better chance to work than anarcho-capitalism, which really would devolve right back into statism in my view although of course, if public opinion was very supportive of libertarian ideals, it could be a benevolent state system. Madison is far more correct than Friedman.
Governments will and do exist. Anarcho-capitalism with a single protection agency is indistinguishable from government. The part where Madison is amazingly, stunningly wrong is suggesting that democracy will curb abuse. Democratic government is unworkable — on this basically everyone agrees. Bureaucracy will exist and operate the day to day functioning of governance. Unfortunately this leaves the whole problem that government needs a source of legitimacy and once you go down the road of saying you rule in the name of the people that you have to have elections.
As Chris Rock put it:. So, we got a big election coming up. Does it really matter? Then the whole thing spins up and starts doing insane things to isolate the bureaucracy from the voters — like in present day Chicago where actual criminal gangs serve as a vote bank. Are using the word democracy here in the ancient Greek way?
As distinguished from a Republic of representatives? They used sortition — political positions filled by lottery and rotated regularly. I trust a randomly allotted assembly to not go around overruling structural engineers very often. They can hire a competent bureaucracy when they need one. Although there may be rare occasions where they should be foolish and listen to the wrong experts e. I understand what you are saying. Personally I like the Venetian or Lubische way of running a republic: There is, as far as I know no mechanism to even ensure that the initial pool is random.
In my country they just straight skip that pretense and just hand-pick jurors. Jurors are rarely well compensated, which is a bad idea. In the US, there is also a demand of unanimity in jury verdicts, which effectively reduces the jury size by a lot.
Allotted representatives need to be given sufficient compensation, they need to be selected from an opt-out pool not opt-in! Increasing monetary compensation and power seems unlikely to prevent professionals or busybodies gaining control though: Political machines were much more like shadow governments. Shadow minsters of road construction, etc. Voters vote in executives who are either clowned by their underlings like when the outer party wins or push the agenda of the inner party — which, as implemented, is indistinguishable from the agenda of permanent government.
Well, who does the distinguishing between essential jobs that need experts and non-essential jobs that are being done anyway for some reason? Who controls the accreditation process for expertise?
Who actually has responsibility? I certainly think the U. There are separate branches and limited powers and bills of rights, etc.
The democratic element is not primary. The primary element is liberty at least, that is what the Sandefur book argues. The democratic element is a safety valve against the worst abuses.
A democratic vote does not ensure that we get a perfect leader or even a good leader. How to actually have a good leader and good policies is the role of the all the rest of the institutions, which have nothing directly to do with democracy. Instead of trying to reduce the size of the government, maybe we try to reduce the amount of democracy in a country without eliminating it.
In other words — the United States started with less democracy but the structure of democracy pushed it towards more democracy. Pushing it towards less democracy is unrealistic and counterproductive.
Moving to no democracy is a much better plan. He has this thing of using scare quotes to indicate the kind of democracy that actually exists. The un scare quoted democracy is a pure theoretical ideal. To me, the two concepts are pretty clearly different but lots of propaganda energy goes into conflating them. Oh, you meant the type of democracy where the voters get to vote for one of two parties neither of which opposes the permanent government is great?
The question is whether they grow disproportionately, or pathologically. Bureaucrats are supposed to implement policy, not make it. The fact that the same people in place does not mean they are enacting the same policies.
Finally, it not necessarily a bad thing if bureaucrats block changes. It is part of the job technical experts to point out hidden drawbacks in an attractive scheme. So far, all systems that work perfectly without reservation are purely theoretical. But Friedman not only never claims anarcho-capitalism will produce a perfect system, he even explicitly admits it will produce sub-optimal results in certain areas, such as, perhaps, environmental protection and intellectual property.
The point is just that most things governments now do can be done much better and cheaper privately, and even if there are a few things a big, centralized monopoly government does do better, like, say, space exploration, they are not enough to justify its existence, given the historical failure of attempts to make government limit itself bill of rights, separation of powers, etc. So we need a lot more governmental competition more, smaller states. For this to happen, people have to stop viewing states as transcendental embodiments of the spirit of a people and start viewing them as just one more service provider.
The dispelling of the special aura of special authority currently surrounding governments in most minds is the key, imo. In a world with competing protection agencies there would be a Pig War every Tuesday.
If you have the capacity to completely conquer and exploit new territories, that can be worth far more than the losses you get from fighting. If Tannahelp and Dawn Defense have clients with conflicting interests, they could go into arbitration to resolve things amicably.