On 20-Jun-11 10:29 PM, Jon Cox wrote: >> They're still consensual. I don't have to use Hungarian Forints, no >> > matter what Hungary says. Only if I want to do business with Hungary >> > do I have to use Forints. Similarly you could decide to only accept >> > transactions in Bitcoins, and that would be consensual as well. > > Consent implies an non-extorted assent. > Jail is used to extort the use of USD for certain purposes. > > Consider the following: > > Q: Did you rape this woman at gunpoint? > A: No. It was consensual sex. She agreed to it. > Q: Did you threaten to shoot her if she did not comply? > A: Yes. > Q: And you call that consensual sex? > A: Yes, she agreed to it. > > Defining consent as "any form of assent", whether extortion > is present or not, strains the common meaning of the term > to the point of absurdity.
Jon, You're confusing what 'consent' means in this context. The 'consent' in the term 'consensual belief system' as applied to currency systems like bitcoin or the USD implies 'assent that this exists'; and NOT 'assent to use this'. i.e, the USD exists because two parties to a transaction agree that it exists - whether the use of this particular currency is enforced or not. Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
