Silk Road forums
Discussion => Security => Topic started by: Heyenezz on February 29, 2012, 01:26 am
-
I made a cash deposit recently to purchase bitcoins from Get Bitcoin. The teller somehow remembered that I also deposited cash last month into Get Bitcoin's account. He asked what Get Bitcoin is. I explained because I didn't want to look suspicious. He then asked what bitcoins are. I told him. He then asked what bitcoins are used for. I told him it was a hobby and that bitcoins could buy pretty much anything.
I'd prefer not to tell him that, but he could always search for Get Bitcoin if I lied. I'd also look more suspicious if I said nothing.
How concerned if at all should I be? I don't see why it's the teller's business what I'm doing.
-
I wouldn't think this is an issue. Bank Tellers are bored, they repeatedly do the same monotonous activities all day, probably was just generally curious.
Beside, the great thing about the bitcoins is that it isnt illegal to acquire them and they cant prove (under normal circumstances) what you're use them for...It is more than probably nothing illegal or nefarious at all.
I wouldn't give it a second thought ;)
-
He *remembered* last month? WTF!
Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)
-
Wow very odd. The bank teller I deposited bitcoins in asked very similar questions, if not in verbatim.
-
Just tell him you are trading internet currencies, and making some money doing it. You can wire transfer but the fees are higher and it takes 3 days, but with the way you are doing it you will have the virtual currency in a couple of hours. If he's interested in bitcoin, saying something like "it's the way of the future, especially for buying stuff on the internet. Some companies are even giving discounts when you use them". blah blah. act excited about bitcoins (or if you actually are, as I am, just be yourself and shoot the shit).
-
Yeah just wait till he googles Bitcoins and finds SR or at least drug related activity out of 'curiousity'. lmfao.
-
I have had customer service reps remember me even with multi-month breaks between times I visited. It was all legit stuff, but it still bothers me.
-
I made a cash deposit recently to purchase bitcoins from Get Bitcoin. The teller somehow remembered that I also deposited cash last month into Get Bitcoin's account. He asked what Get Bitcoin is. I explained because I didn't want to look suspicious. He then asked what bitcoins are. I told him. He then asked what bitcoins are used for. I told him it was a hobby and that bitcoins could buy pretty much anything.
I'd prefer not to tell him that, but he could always search for Get Bitcoin if I lied. I'd also look more suspicious if I said nothing.
How concerned if at all should I be? I don't see why it's the teller's business what I'm doing.
Just wondering, why are you using the same bank again and again, let alone ending up with the same teller, when it's a cash deposit?
-
I've had nosey ass bank tellers ask me shit like "oh what are you doing with this $1200 cash?"
I'm going shopping motherfucker, leave me alone
Just go to another bank, they're everywhere like an infestation
-
I made a cash deposit recently to purchase bitcoins from Get Bitcoin. The teller somehow remembered that I also deposited cash last month into Get Bitcoin's account. He asked what Get Bitcoin is. I explained because I didn't want to look suspicious. He then asked what bitcoins are. I told him. He then asked what bitcoins are used for. I told him it was a hobby and that bitcoins could buy pretty much anything.
I'd prefer not to tell him that, but he could always search for Get Bitcoin if I lied. I'd also look more suspicious if I said nothing.
How concerned if at all should I be? I don't see why it's the teller's business what I'm doing.
Just wondering, why are you using the same bank again and again, let alone ending up with the same teller, when it's a cash deposit?
I'vedone two cash deposits and both were relatively small amounts. The first was about $200. The second was less than $20.
-
As others have mentioned, I think they're just bored and nosey.
Before I had Internet banking and Paypal set up, I used to make cash deposits at various banks for eBay purchases.
90% of the time, the tellers would be like "Ooh, is this for something on eBay? Omg what are you getting!?!?!?"
-
It's not that easy. Get-Bitcoin only uses Chase and Bank of America. There are only a few of these branches where I live.
I'd use another exchanger except I can't find a cheaper, faster, or most importantly, more secure method of getting bitcoins than I do now.
I don't think I'm seriously at risk. He has no way of knowing who I am or where I live. It's more annoying than anything to be asked about your business.
-
Not to mention the bitcoins you get shouldn't be in any way linked to your SR purchases if you do it right.
-
He *remembered* last month? WTF!
Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)
Not being the violent type BUT I have to agree with Pine LMFAO!
-
I made a cash deposit recently to purchase bitcoins from Get Bitcoin. The teller somehow remembered that I also deposited cash last month into Get Bitcoin's account. He asked what Get Bitcoin is....
Next time try "Beats me, pal. I'm just doing a favor for a friend / roommate / neighbor / coworker." If that's not enough, say the friend / roommate / neighbor / coworker is crippled or gimped up real bad just now. If * that's* not enough, do what Pine said. (Then run away, obviously.)
-
I think my bank teller hates me? I pretty much "work under the table" and constantly deposit checks which i can tell bugs her (sticks up her butt) doesn't help that i have a huge 99% for the people on my door. These people are bored and some no they have power to report suspicious activity to HLS or IRS or whoever? i quit using Dwolla because of her. They see all are info...fuckers....i hate banks and banksters
-
Chill out man. Probably just your paranoia button being pushed. ;D
Just tell 'em you use them on gaming sites on the internet. That your a game freak.
-
I love how when i go to my bank and all the employees are kissing my ass like I'm their best friend. Need to switch to credit union where the employees are not robots
-
You can do cash deposits through bitinstant for 5% fee at different banks if you are interested and then buy the coins on mt. gox. Its even faster than get-btc and you can get the coins for the actual market price instead of how I found wit get-btc which gives you coins for the highest rate reached that day it seems.
The tellers actually recognize me too, which really isnt a big deal to me. One just asked why the acct was in GA and I said it was an online payment thing. Some do look at you funny after youve handed them a few hundred dollars more than a couple times though. I switch banks too but only have a couple options and it seems like this one girl is the only one who ever works at one. I forgot the acct number once and she helped look it up for me with the name, and even remember it was the right one and where it was located...
If they mention btc just tell them it is like a stock market exchange and you are trying to make some easy money of the future.
-
Funnily enough I was asked about this when I made a deposit recently. (after 2 other times with no questions from the teller). The girl was very friendly and bubbly and it seemed like a natural curiosity though. She claimed to have never heard of BTC. I just vaguely explained it was similar to Paypal and she seemed to be happy with that.
-
Yeah, there really are so many reasons to be buying bitcoins I don't think you should be worried at all.
I've been asked before too and I just say I use them as 'credits' for online poker just like you buy chips at a casino.
I'm 99% sure they just ask out of sheer curiosity.
-
tell them to mind there own fuckin business and not youres !!
oh and also remind them that your visits to there place of employment keeps there sorry ass in employment
nosey fuckers
-
dont worry about it what the fuck can he do..??? besides...you know where he works...
-
Tell them it's used for eBay.
99% chance they won't know.
Also -
Never go to female tellers. They're more "everything by the books" type, while guys are more likely to just not give a fuck.
Just my personal experience from over a dozen bank deposit transactions.
One older woman asked me what it was and I told her it was for eBay. She seemed happy with that.
I make sure to vary my transaction times and location so I don't run the risk of running into the same person twice. Usually works.
-
I visit the same branch at the same time pretty often to make cash deposits for Get-Bitcoin. Every time, there is the same guy who not only sees me, the majority of the time he is my teller. Today he asked me "How is business going for you?" I didn't know how to reply because I didn't know what he was talking about about..But I figured he assumed I worked for GetBitcoin..I said "Not bad." and he asked what it is "we" do...I told him it's a virtual currency to play games on the internet, like FarmVille or The Sims. I guess it was good enough for him because he didn't ask any more questions.
Not too worried about it, he is friendly enough. I certainly remember him from the 2nd time I walked in, so I only assumed he remembered me.
-
- i've never heard of UK bank tellers asking anything aside what they need to type in the computer as "personal" bank transactions are non of
their business, their job is just to process the info and move on to the next customer -maybe tellers in usa have different job function(s)..?!
- should have been better prepared mentally, playing the scenario over and over in your head what your responses would have been...
- common sense suggests you use different bank branches, break up routine, get to know who is behind the counter i know its difficult but the
more banks you walk into the less chance you'll be recognised -and why would you be recognised if they deal with hundreds of customers...?!
- another possibility if the account has been flagged up on the screen and the teller is purposefully asking these questions as the bank is hoping
to shut the account down...they suspect somethin's up already.
- bitcoins could be used to fund your online gaming account !!
-
Never go to female tellers. They're more "everything by the books" type, while guys are more likely to just not give a fuck.
I actually had the opposite experience. The most sketchy response I have gotten came from a younger male teller who acted all sketched out I was handing him cash... he even asked to see my id or card and I just told him it was a commercial acct, and I didnt give him anything but the cash and deposit slip. Then he asked if it was my acct and so I told him it was an online payment processor (this was for bitinstant so btc isnt in the name). Asking for my identification is getting too intrusive though, Ive never had anyone else do that and dont know why he would have needed it...
-
I get asked almost every time I need to transfer funds at a bank for BTC purposes.
I FLIPPED out on the teller the last time, bank manager ran out, and he was ultimately sent home for asking a client for privileged and private information that he purported was required for him to process any deposit's (that's when I started flipping out, i do not like being lied to and he was persistent lol).
The latest time I went into a bank as always the teller asks me what this is for, do i trust this company (is it any of the banks business what businesses I deposit funds into?), etc. My response was a stout "It's none of your business is it?" She became notably less chatty lol and responded no sir I guess it's not, and then proceeded to silently and effortlessly do her job.
-
He *remembered* last month? WTF!
Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)
Lolol we're supposed to be better, more sophisticated than our street-pushing brethren? That's funny Pine :) I robbed a bank, got locked up and just did 6 years for it. Now whatever I do, I'm holding court on the streets if I get jammed up again.
Next time try "Beats me, pal. I'm just doing a favor for a friend / roommate / neighbor / coworker." If that's not enough, say the friend / roommate / neighbor / coworker is crippled or gimped up real bad just now. If * that's* not enough, do what Pine said. (Then run away, obviously.))
Also a good idea. Not the shooting people- nonviolence please xD- you need to put that thing away lol.
-
He *remembered* last month? WTF!
Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)
Lolol we're supposed to be better, more sophisticated than our street-pushing brethren? That's funny Pine :) I robbed a bank, got locked up and just did 6 years for it. Now whatever I do, I'm holding court on the streets if I get jammed up again.
Wait, you are a paralegal *and* a recently released bank robber? Only one of those can be true! Wat!
Obviously my 'shoot him in the head' was a joke. I like to overreact sometimes for dramatic affect, I hope that was clear.
I might be a capitalist, but I'm not an anarchist (nor pro-statist, although technically everybody who isn't an anarchist is a statist to a greater or lesser extent), and I don't agree with the non-aggression principle at all.
I expand on this, because most people here seem to think NAP will put them on a higher moral position than the Government, which may be true, but I feel it is pointless exercise in philosophical thinking. Being perpetually in a position of 'defense' could completely compromise you. Imagine the Jews adopting NAP in Nazi Germany, just how far do you imagine that would have gotten them?
I see a *less* violent future with organizations like the Silk Road popping up, because of the virtual interface and because of practical 'soft power' systems like buyer feedback, reputation systems, financial services like escrow etc keeping people on their toes and in line. Actually we're simply availing ourselves of systems the white market has had for centuries, but we couldn't get widespread access to until now.
That doesn't mean that violence is suddenly off the table. Violence is simply the continuation of negotiations once diplomatic means are exhausted. It is cruel and terrible with physical and psychological consequences, which is why it's usually a last resort. But all things exist for reasons, and violence too has a reason. We don't like death from old age either, but it clearly has a function or it wouldn't exist. Again, we avoid it if at all possible, but it is inevitably out there.
The State has a monopoly on violence, and this is good thing because it reduces violence overall. I'm sure anaracho47 will disagree, but tribes of hunter/gatherers in the past did have an anarchist-like society, and they were incredibly violent times because there was no central strong power to prevent the logic of M.A.D from making them launch preemptive attacks on each other out of fear. But if the State oversteps the mark, it is acceptable to begin a war against them. Otherwise how could we in the West feel empathy for Assad's victims in Syria? If we believed only the State has that authority, then we would think of the dead civilians as terrorists only. Clearly we must believe it is possible for a State to also be a terrorist. So offensive aggression can have validity if it's just preemptive defense.
Game Theory says Tit for Tat works. Strike once asked, who watches the watchmen? And he said it was he himself, which is the right answer. It is the obligation of every citizen, whether they be pacifistic or not to question the System if it appears to be behaving in cruel or unusual ways.
-
That doesn't mean that violence is suddenly off the table. Violence is simply the continuation of negotiations once diplomatic means are exhausted.
Hehe. Okay you got me. But I do have a paralegal certificate, know a ton about criminal and civil rights law, I am holding a respectable job, and I got out 9 months ago. So I agree with you on your philosophy of force, like for instance when our constitutional protections don't protect us (like we are out of view of the public) or when the law is (in our opinion) wrong in the first place. Freedom comes first, except where your freedom would injure another. For 6 years I saw the guardians of the state brutalize, marginalize, and debase us, and now I'm strapped like the feds. But I am not for violence in general. I'm trying to live a semi-decent life here but it is super hard because people don't like ex-cons, but I like myself so that's a start. :)
-
He *remembered* last month? WTF!
Shoot him in the head. Works for me :)
Lolol we're supposed to be better, more sophisticated than our street-pushing brethren? That's funny Pine :) I robbed a bank, got locked up and just did 6 years for it. Now whatever I do, I'm holding court on the streets if I get jammed up again.
Wait, you are a paralegal *and* a recently released bank robber? Only one of those can be true! Wat!
Obviously my 'shoot him in the head' was a joke. I like to overreact sometimes for dramatic affect, I hope that was clear.
I might be a capitalist, but I'm not an anarchist (nor pro-statist, although technically everybody who isn't an anarchist is a statist to a greater or lesser extent), and I don't agree with the non-aggression principle at all.
I expand on this, because most people here seem to think NAP will put them on a higher moral position than the Government, which may be true, but I feel it is pointless exercise in philosophical thinking. Being perpetually in a position of 'defense' could completely compromise you. Imagine the Jews adopting NAP in Nazi Germany, just how far do you imagine that would have gotten them?
I see a *less* violent future with organizations like the Silk Road popping up, because of the virtual interface and because of practical 'soft power' systems like buyer feedback, reputation systems, financial services like escrow etc keeping people on their toes and in line. Actually we're simply availing ourselves of systems the white market has had for centuries, but we couldn't get widespread access to until now.
That doesn't mean that violence is suddenly off the table. Violence is simply the continuation of negotiations once diplomatic means are exhausted. It is cruel and terrible with physical and psychological consequences, which is why it's usually a last resort. But all things exist for reasons, and violence too has a reason. We don't like death from old age either, but it clearly has a function or it wouldn't exist. Again, we avoid it if at all possible, but it is inevitably out there.
The State has a monopoly on violence, and this is good thing because it reduces violence overall. I'm sure anaracho47 will disagree, but tribes of hunter/gatherers in the past did have an anarchist-like society, and they were incredibly violent times because there was no central strong power to prevent the logic of M.A.D from making them launch preemptive attacks on each other out of fear. But if the State oversteps the mark, it is acceptable to begin a war against them. Otherwise how could we in the West feel empathy for Assad's victims in Syria? If we believed only the State has that authority, then we would think of the dead civilians as terrorists only. Clearly we must believe it is possible for a State to also be a terrorist. So offensive aggression can have validity if it's just preemptive defense.
Game Theory says Tit for Tat works. Strike once asked, who watches the watchmen? And he said it was he himself, which is the right answer. It is the obligation of every citizen, whether they be pacifistic or not to question the System if it appears to be behaving in cruel or unusual ways.
lol you knew I was coming after this ;)
I would suggest you do your reading up on the "wild west" which is the best example of a close-to-anarchist society in recent history that was based on individualist principles similar to the NAP.
As to your Jews in Germany remark, I don't think that holds a drop of water. Living by the NAP means you make sure you are able to defend yourself against violence or threats thereof. I have ready many accounts, outside of the outright weapons bans of the Hitler regime (these measures were present in ALL of the dozens of major genocides in the 20th century), where the Jewish people were extremely passive. They were such in number that they could have overtaken the initial forces of sadists coming to herd them off by picking up lamps and broom handles and overpowering them and stealing their guns. They didn't act in defense. The NAP is very strongly in favor of strong defense, especially since owning an inanimate object (like a high-powered assault rifle and anti-personnel rounds) doesn't violate the NAP. It is only in statist societies where massive genocides have occurred - you have to have a centralized, monopolized group of violent people and a disarmed population for it to even be a possibility.
This is why I laugh whenever anyone says it's possible the U.S. could be invaded. There are more guns in private hands in the United States than the entire population of the country. It would be a suicide attempt for anyone, even the U.S.'s own government, to attempt to declare all-out war on the American people. That is the thin veil of protection that the US population has against Hitler 2.0.
-
Just do your tranfers online. No need to deal with nosey bank tellers.
-
Just do your tranfers online. No need to deal with nosey bank tellers.
= not anonymous.
-
Online should be fine, unless you're pushing weight and have to add to/get rid of them all the time.
-
lol you knew I was coming after this ;)
I would suggest you do your reading up on the "wild west" which is the best example of a close-to-anarchist society in recent history that was based on individualist principles similar to the NAP.
As to your Jews in Germany remark, I don't think that holds a drop of water. Living by the NAP means you make sure you are able to defend yourself against violence or threats thereof. I have ready many accounts, outside of the outright weapons bans of the Hitler regime (these measures were present in ALL of the dozens of major genocides in the 20th century), where the Jewish people were extremely passive. They were such in number that they could have overtaken the initial forces of sadists coming to herd them off by picking up lamps and broom handles and overpowering them and stealing their guns. They didn't act in defense. The NAP is very strongly in favor of strong defense, especially since owning an inanimate object (like a high-powered assault rifle and anti-personnel rounds) doesn't violate the NAP. It is only in statist societies where massive genocides have occurred - you have to have a centralized, monopolized group of violent people and a disarmed population for it to even be a possibility.
This is why I laugh whenever anyone says it's possible the U.S. could be invaded. There are more guns in private hands in the United States than the entire population of the country. It would be a suicide attempt for anyone, even the U.S.'s own government, to attempt to declare all-out war on the American people. That is the thin veil of protection that the US population has against Hitler 2.0.
Okdokey, give us a good book(s) to read then. I read quite fast, soon I will be through all the intel posted on the forums, no fear of the written word here, haha! Some Jews might have been passive sheep to the slaughter, but some of them certainly were not, you must have heard of the vicious battles that raged inside the ghettos all over Europe? In some cases it took months for the Germans to take back control of the very inner cities they were supposed to be occupying! No, I assure you the Jews by no means were pacifists. At least some of them were insightful enough to understand the reports from the camps and what they meant.
My point about hunter gather societies wasn't that States are non-violent, because the State is inherently based upon the threat of violence. Any political scientist worth his salt who's read Leviathan by Hobbs knows that. No nation state, no social contract.
Where we fundamentally disagree I think, is that I see a terrible threat from decentralized violence in anarchist society, where groups will form and develop neverending vendetta on each other's heads over and over and over. Much like the mob wars in Italy. Much like any tribe in Africa today. Ultimately leading to more destruction that any State would impose, after all, if people are dead they cannot pay their taxes. There is an upper limit on the insanity of a State, where it begins to destroy itself even if it's not held to account for it's murderous actions.
You could tell me that we could have privately organized justice systems competing with each other, but I wonder how they will compete if there is no arbiter between them to stop violence between them.
That may sound abstract, so let's get concrete. I don't like Sharia Law and Muslims don't like some Western Laws. It would be easy to develop conflict between those two competing legal systems, and by conflict I mean it literally. Locals are always enraged in Europe when Muslims attempt to implement Sharia customs, I find it easy to imagine violence consequences if the hand of the State wasn't there to stay both parties.
Some evidence for my thinking, is that Nation States have much lower rates of violent crime than the so-called Failed States. If you look over time, over the last 3-4 centuries, the stronger the State becomes, the lower the crime rate becomes. Today we live in the least violent time period in history. It's been a steady linear decrease in violent crime per capita over time. (albeit you'd never believe it from the Media!)
Now, that doesn't mean that 'external violence' does not exist. Clearly the inter-state wars of the 20th century were exceptionally bloody.
But the internal violence has steadily declined for centuries with the rise of the Nation State, and any anarchist has to explain how his society would replicate that effect without taking us back to tribalism. It is totally conceivable that we could politically 'de-evolve'.
Do you have an answer to this?
tldr; why throw out the baby with the bathwater?
-
BitInstant worked perfectly for me last time but I still wouldn't like to go to the bank regularly, so can anyone vouch for moneypaks? I might try that route next time.
-
I've long said that I would be satisfied with minarchism, but I believe in the power of universal human self-interest and therefore in anarcho-capitalism.
I would be fine with government courts and police and such, so long as they didn't actually have a coercive monopoly on their services and people could say "you suck" and move over to a private alternative.
Having a massive monopoly on violence means you have a structure just sitting their waiting to be co-opted by whichever ideology happens to have a majority at the time. If enough muslims kept immigrating into europe and having 9-children families and teaching Sharia law, in a generation or two you suddenly have a "moral majority" and under collectivist/statist doctrine they can just "swap" the whole system over to Sharia and nobody has any say in the matter.
Personal crime might be down, but I would argue that crime has a lot more to do with poverty and a human's ability to defend him/herself. Again, I go back to guns. The market provided a man or woman with ability to stand up against multiple assailants with this tool, which is a natural deterrent to crime (see switzerland, with its 90-something-percent household gun ownership, and lowest violent/property crime rates in western civilization). But the bigger issue is poverty. If people have the opportunity to pursue self-interest in a profitable manner, they aren't going to pursue crime (because it's dangerous/high risk) over an honest profit.
For a good primer on US history, I would recommend checking out Thomas Woods, a Harvard PhD historian and Austrian economics. His book "33 questions about American History" is excellent. All of his books are excellent, truth be told, and his sourcing of facts is pretty much unparalleled in his history and economic papers and books.
If we look at crime now there are some distinct categories we can place things in to. General sadism is still pretty flat, and has increased in most western countries since major gun bans came into effect (things like rape, most of which aren't even reported). Drug crimes and all of the associated crime (I think something like 30-40% of violent crime is drug related in the US, and a similar amount for property theft) are up as enforcement becomes more and more draconian. It is the economics of prohibition that turn people into 100% habit-focused addicts. The production cost on cocaine is dirt cheap, and that's still with production being illegal. Mark up is tens of thousands of percent by the time it hits the ounce-buying dealer.
Not to mention that while private-interaction violence drops off (I credit this to capitalism providing better outlets for self-interest, versus state coercion), the 20th century saw more mass murder and collectivist "cleansing", along with eugenics and a hundred million sacrifices to Molech, than any other century prior. These were state atrocities, not individual or group actions.
An example of how the economics of statist policies/collectivist morality affect crime: A regular cocaine habit takes something like $50,000 - $70,000 to sustain in the US. The high end of that is almost double what the average US worker makes pre-tax. Celebrities, a great many of whom are cocaine addicts, can sustain this habit and one generally doesn't even know they are addicted. An average person must focus all of their time and energy on acquiring the resources to keep the addiction sated. And because an "honest job" hardly covers the costs or falls very short. violent crime or prostitution or becoming a seller, etc. are the only ways to sustain this for a large percentage of users. Imagine if free markets were allowed to provide something like cocaine, at $2.00 per gram and extremely high purity, coffee-shop style, completely unregulated. Any addict could be a 100% functional member of society that would only have to devote a small part of their life to feeding this habit, the same as someone addicted to caffeine might.
-
I've long said that I would be satisfied with minarchism, but I believe in the power of universal human self-interest and therefore in anarcho-capitalism.
I would be fine with government courts and police and such, so long as they didn't actually have a coercive monopoly on their services and people could say "you suck" and move over to a private alternative.
Ok, but in practice don't we already have this to some degree in the West?
An American or European can pretty much go anywhere within the West, so long as certain criteria is filled, usually Time. And people do avail of these freedoms when it's in their interest to do so, but it's not the case that entire nations get up and go suddenly.
Now, like yourself, I think there should be *no* barriers to the movement of labor. Governments should compete for people as clients to be taxed etc. But I think we are 50% of the way there, even though it was much freer at the beginning of the 20th century than it is today. The world wars devastated the ideals of capitalism.
However, we do seem to have a paradox where distinctly centralized and powerful states in Hong Kong and Singapore are quite authoritarian, I mean socially authoritarian not economically, but nevertheless these are extremely free markets with governments that appreciate the fundamentals of capitalism. Recently the Hong Kong government gave everyone a rebate of six or nine thousand dollars, because they didn't need the money... These states, incidentally to anybody else reading this discussion, are among the lowest in terms of taxation in the world. They are also very resilient to economic crisis and have next to no poverty or other social ills. Basically, if you take care of the market, it takes care of most other things without requiring continual expensive interventions. All the empirical evidence you want is in those two cities. Tax is an afterthought in the minds of most Singaporeans and Hong Kong citizens. Yet their governments are extremely powerful and influential on the world scene.
I think in the long term, this is the future. Very large city states controlling the world. That countries, nations will recede in importance and cities will become the dominant new 'State'. Just like in ancient Greece. Anyway, I seem to have wandered off topic... :D
Having a massive monopoly on violence means you have a structure just sitting their waiting to be co-opted by whichever ideology happens to have a majority at the time. If enough muslims kept immigrating into europe and having 9-children families and teaching Sharia law, in a generation or two you suddenly have a "moral majority" and under collectivist/statist doctrine they can just "swap" the whole system over to Sharia and nobody has any say in the matter.
Yup, which is why democracy is not a pancrea. If markets are not a perfect pancrea, then with democracy this is 100 times more so the case.
In practice, Muslims are being absorbed into the West. They have lost the ideological war a long time ago. This whole business with Sept 11th and the wars in the East are an actual sideshow in comparison to the great shift in thinking in the East. The West has won, it's just that this kind of thing takes centuries to fully play out such that everyone sees the big picture.
Personal crime might be down, but I would argue that crime has a lot more to do with poverty and a human's ability to defend him/herself. Again, I go back to guns. The market provided a man or woman with ability to stand up against multiple assailants with this tool, which is a natural deterrent to crime (see switzerland, with its 90-something-percent household gun ownership, and lowest violent/property crime rates in western civilization). But the bigger issue is poverty. If people have the opportunity to pursue self-interest in a profitable manner, they aren't going to pursue crime (because it's dangerous/high risk) over an honest profit.
Well, I can certainly identify with that. Opportunities available to me, are scant. The fault ultimately lies in the high taxation of Europe. There is no opportunities for smart hungry people anymore. The government hasn't the first fucking clue, they keep blathering on about 'information technology', 'bio-tech', 'nano-tech' as if that will save them from the tremendous morass, the huge burden they've placed on us. When I was legit I remember spending weeks and weeks filling in and collecting different bits of paperwork to pay my myriad of taxes, then worrying at night whether I'd misplaced a zero or a comma somewhere until my accountant validated the paperwork. I worked hard, educated myself, and invested in our system. I made money, but it was a miserable, paltry sum of money. It would take me four decades to buy myself a modest home. That is why the majority of Italian youths live with their parents today, even though they are 30 - 40 years old themselves. People on the benefits system were getting by just fine without working a single day, in fact they were the ones most frequently paying *me* to work for them. See something wrong with this picture?
The vast majority of Europeans, are frankly asleep at the wheel of this train wreck. At least some Americans are bitching about the problem, at least they are aware!
I'm not the kind of person who blames things 'on the system'. I'm an individualist, I look to myself first if there's something wrong, since it usually is the case that you are the problem. However it just *cannot be the case* that I am to blame for the bullshit of the last ten/twenty years with our governments throwing money down the toilet with hundreds of half baked schemes, high taxation on workers and an enormous 'benefits class' that sit on their asses. People themselves have been completely corrupted by high taxes, you can see it as plain as daylight in the housing estates of our countries. People have no hope or aspirations anymore. Their biggest life event is getting a new smartphone or making babies, they are literally like cattle. They accept the world just as it is.
Eventually I said to myself: How about No, and I became a criminal for exactly this reason. It's a more honest living. Listen to this government, there are consequences for your stupidity, not all of us will lie down and take it up the ass like you were doing us a favor. Yeah, I mad.
/rant
For a good primer on US history, I would recommend checking out Thomas Woods, a Harvard PhD historian and Austrian economics. His book "33 questions about American History" is excellent. All of his books are excellent, truth be told, and his sourcing of facts is pretty much unparalleled in his history and economic papers and books.
I'll pickup a copy sometime, thanks.
If we look at crime now there are some distinct categories we can place things in to. General sadism is still pretty flat, and has increased in most western countries since major gun bans came into effect (things like rape, most of which aren't even reported). Drug crimes and all of the associated crime (I think something like 30-40% of violent crime is drug related in the US, and a similar amount for property theft) are up as enforcement becomes more and more draconian. It is the economics of prohibition that turn people into 100% habit-focused addicts. The production cost on cocaine is dirt cheap, and that's still with production being illegal. Mark up is tens of thousands of percent by the time it hits the ounce-buying dealer.
The structure of the system molds the people within it. It's just reality. The DEA is like one of those hunting dogs, intelligent in the hunt, but fundamentally dumb as a bag of rocks when it comes to the big picture. They are not so much the Orwellian actors of 1984, as the characters of A Brave New World, they are desensitized by their beliefs to see the long term consequences of banning drugs such as marijuana and MDMA. They are a great burden on the State. They are not real patriots at all.
Not to mention that while private-interaction violence drops off (I credit this to capitalism providing better outlets for self-interest, versus state coercion), the 20th century saw more mass murder and collectivist "cleansing", along with eugenics and a hundred million sacrifices to Molech, than any other century prior. These were state atrocities, not individual or group actions.
That is all very true, but it doesn't mean that anarchism will reduce the overall rate of violence per capita within society. You could take away 'external violence', only to replace it with a greater amount of 'internal violence' if you take my meaning. I think the lesson the 20th century, is that if you're going to have a Revolution, you better be really really sure you're replacing it with something better.
An example of how the economics of statist policies/collectivist morality affect crime: A regular cocaine habit takes something like $50,000 - $70,000 to sustain in the US. The high end of that is almost double what the average US worker makes pre-tax. Celebrities, a great many of whom are cocaine addicts, can sustain this habit and one generally doesn't even know they are addicted. An average person must focus all of their time and energy on acquiring the resources to keep the addiction sated. And because an "honest job" hardly covers the costs or falls very short. violent crime or prostitution or becoming a seller, etc. are the only ways to sustain this for a large percentage of users. Imagine if free markets were allowed to provide something like cocaine, at $2.00 per gram and extremely high purity, coffee-shop style, completely unregulated. Any addict could be a 100% functional member of society that would only have to devote a small part of their life to feeding this habit, the same as someone addicted to caffeine might.
QFT
-
Pine - seems we agree most of the way. Like I said, I would settle for minarchism if that were the case, with some serious caveats for the parasite class. But I still hold to the belief that humans will cooperate instead of conflict when cooperation is more profitable than conflict (markets reward cooperation - i.e. continued expansion of the division of labor, economies of scale, etc.). Government creates conflict, especially under a moral-majority system of democracy. It divides society into groups and then pits those groups against each other for the resources it acquires.
If there wasn't an oligopoly on who the Judges could be in the time of Samuel, that whole passage about what would happen if the Israelites were assigned a King would never have come to pass (it's eerie if you read that. 1 Samuel 12, I believe). Competition would have straightened out the corruption, and the entire private-law society would have carried on. If you are interested in studying private law and how it would function in a very minarchist or anarcho-capitalist society, I would recommend reading some of Hans Hoppe's papers and books. You can find them online for free in .pdf format.
Good having this discussion. Hopefully many more to come :)
-
More likely, the teller was just seriously bored.
-
Haven't been asked myself, but here's a few ideas, custom tailer to your age/appearance/demeanor:
It's like paypal, but for Japan
You're gonna think I'm a huge nerd, but I'm addicted to Magic The Gathering and that's what we use to trade with. I should probably open up an IRA instead, but not today, haha.
(substitute Mtg for a random South Korea/Japanese MMO/Pokemon/Card Trading game/Warcraft, etc.).
Online Poker
Ripping off nerds and anarchists
Ron Paul 2012! End the Fed!
Currency Trading
Up 1000% (or whatever it is) since 2010! There's no way this is gonna be another Beanie Babies. BTW, do you know anyone that wants to buy a mint princess diana beanie baby? Well, nearly mint. Actually, my cousins dog kinda bit the tag.
-
no borders / free movement of labour;
- current employment / migration of worker laws are carefully crafted to meet hidden agenda and allow these companies to take advantage of
either loopholes or cheap labour, instead of the best interests of its voters = its tax paying citizens.
- what would stop anyone arriving to work and live in a country that cannot support the massive influx and strain on infrastructure?!
- whilst i would love to support this free movement 100% the current system doesn't work and would hate to think what effect this has on
the indigenous people if there were no restrictions, looks good on paper don't know whats practical...
- revolutionary / entire restructure of governments & world markets to allow this free movement / one world
vision to work for everyone which isnt going to happen in our lifetime if i were to be realistic about it.
-
people always bring switzerland into the gun bullshit u carnt compare switz to other euro countrys there all rich cunts with no gettos and drug gangs so of cource there not goin to have violent crime weather they have guns or not,in uk nearly all gun crimes to do with gangs apart from the odd wierdo who has a gun licence and just goes on a shooting spree
i tell my drug worker all the time no matter how much bullshit other people tell them to keep there script if smack was £5 a gram u wouldnt have a job and there would be no smack related crime
-
people always bring switzerland into the gun bullshit u carnt compare switz to other euro countrys there all rich cunts with no gettos and drug gangs so of cource there not goin to have violent crime weather they have guns or not,in uk nearly all gun crimes to do with gangs apart from the odd wierdo who has a gun licence and just goes on a shooting spree
i tell my drug worker all the time no matter how much bullshit other people tell them to keep there script if smack was £5 a gram u wouldnt have a job and there would be no smack related crime
Hmm... the truth about the swiss is a little more complicated. If you delve into their history, its reads like camelot, or the star trek federation or the star wars old republic. Check it out:
hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Swiss_Confederacy
-
Well, how did YOU find out about bitcoins?
I mean ... personally I was interested as hell when I first heard about it. Teller was probably just trying to get In On It. Just because they work at a bank doesn't mean they aren't a potential SR WEIRDO.
Nearly Everyone is In On It, you know. Just look at how enormous this Underground market is . . .