T-1000

Then the only solution is to require Tor to log all of its users ie. names and addresses available for law enforcement inspection, and to require Tor to restrict access to illegal websites (such as SilkRoad, child porn sites, terrorist websites, etc).

I do not think this is an unworkable law, or an overstepping of power. This is the police protecting people from terrorism, child porn, contraband, etc.

I put it to you that you are a libertarian. You use the non-initiation of force principle (NIOF) without regard for context. In the context of certain military operations the government can pre-emptively strike (ie initiate force before the other side does). In the context of nuclear weapons in the hands of a normal citizen, the government can legitimately prohibit this. Each of the previous sentences was started with "In the context of", so this is not ethical intrinsicism. Libertarians hate premptive military strikes (look at Cato.org), and prohibition just as you seem to hate it. So I hope you see why you are coming across as a libertarian to me.

I put it to you that most of the big users of Bitcoin (in its current form) will be criminals. In this context, how can you justify not either 1)banning it 2)regulating it (eg require Bitcoin exchanges to validate and log postal addresses of users)?

I put it to you that you are a libertarian. You use the non-initiation of force principle (NIOF) without regard for context. In the context of certain military operations the government can pre-emptively strike (ie initiate force before the other side does). In the context of nuclear weapons in the hands of a normal citizen, the government can legitimately prohibit this. Each of the previous sentences was started with "In the context of", so this is not ethical intrinsicism. Libertarians hate premptive military strikes (look at Cato.org), and prohibition just as you seem to hate it. So I hope you see why you are coming across as a libertarian to me.

I put it to you that most of the big users of Bitcoin (in its current form) will be criminals. In this context, how can you justify not either 1)banning it 2)regulating it (eg require Bitcoin exchanges to validate and log postal addresses of users)?

This is false. For example it is completely moral to have prohibition of nuclear weapons. Or anything else that threatens national security. Such as bitcoin.

Serious question: Are you a libertarian or an anarchist?

Serious question: Are you a fascist or a conservative?

This is false. For example it is completely moral to have prohibition of nuclear weapons. Or anything else that threatens national security. Such as bitcoin.

Serious question: Are you a libertarian or an anarchist?

Bold mine:

I completely disagree with you guys on this. What you are saying is essentially the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Obviously people can agree with Objectivism and then change their minds. To say that they never truly agreed with it because they changed their minds is clearly a logical fallacy.

You sort of answered your own question. The issue probably won't ever come up again. I could list 30 things off the top of my head that people could better spend their time on than this. Even best, best case scenario...get an amendment added to the Constitution which expressly allows dancing at the Jefferson Memorial...so what? I still have to give away 1/2 of my money each year...airwaves are still granted by government charter.

In all actuality though, there probably isn't even a rule about dancing there. The rule is probably that security can take what steps they feel that they need to ensure the safety of the grounds and the visitors and staff. Best case scenario, you could have the sergeant reprimanded for over reacting. But even that is unlikely since the officers were incredibly restrained. Leaving out firearms, clubs, and tazers, all of the martial applications were entirely non-ballistic, restraining techniques. The gentle chokes, take downs, all of it. They could not have been more gentle.

And to save you(Jennifer, not Eiuol) the trouble of another ad hominem, I've studied martial arts for the better part of 14 years, mostly self defense applications. You know...in between episodes of Spongebob.

You should honestly look before you leap. In the last year I built a Montessori School from scratch which I expect to have open this coming fall; I worked part time; went to school part time; Made a significant positive return on my stock investments which I manage myself; this all was while I was emotionally embroiled in a terrible personal tragedy in which I assisted in removing my sister, physically and emotionally, from a white slavery circumstance which finally, 6 months ago landed all 5 of the perpetrators in federal prison with multiple life sentences. So...now am I entitled to an opinion or would you care to pointlessly insult me some more for disagreeing with this fellow's approach?

My hope is that through Montessori, teaching children how to think critically and in essentials will help them realize the futility of this decidedly anarchist approach to change. Government owned property is privately owned property. There is no right to dance there, or sing there, or protest there. It is all privilege granted by the owner or in this case, the owners appointed caretakers. If they demanded that people in their facility wear only orange socks on Tuesday it would be totally within their rights to do so.

The only legitimate argument is that government should not be allowed to own that particular property which is not an argument which they made.

It's the same thing on public roads. Some speeds limits may strike you as utterly ridiculous, but intentionally breaking the law and going to jail as a form of protest is valueless and wrong headed.

Think about it like this...there is one stretch of road where the speed limit really bothers you, so in addition to getting arrested and spending tons of money on fines you write letters, make phone calls, hire attorneys, and finally you get the civil engineers to recalculate and they grant you a change to the one spot. Hurray. Nothing has fundamentally changed! The government still owns the roads and while you were busy eliminating that one speed trap they built 47 others. It's not a winnable fight in this way and doing nothing would be more helpful to the cause then trying to take them down from the bottom up. Ideas matter. You have to change the way people think or you're just spitting into the wind and getting angry that the wind blew it back in your face.

Writing, educating, or if you want more direct interaction, pursuing constitutional law and running for office are all legitimate. (And to be clear, most of what he does seems to qualify as appropriate. This one doesn't.

I agree. However I am not defending the principle that it is in everyone's self-interest to cheat strangers. I am arguing that it is in MY self interest to cheat strangers.