Just so we are clear on what kind of regime we are dealing with…

#Ayatollah #Khomenei on child marriage:

“It’s not permissible to have vaginal intercourse with a wife before she completes 9 years [of age], whether the marriage is permanent or temporary.

As for other enjoyments — such as touching with lust, embracing, and thighing (rubbing between the thighs) — there is no objection to them, even with a suckling infant.

If he has vaginal intercourse with her before [the age of] nine and does not cause ifda' (injury), nothing results from it except sin, according to the stronger opinion.

If he causes ifda' — by making the urinary and menstrual passages one, or the menstrual and fecal passages one — vaginal intercourse with her becomes permanently forbidden to him forever; however, this is according to caution in the second case.

In any case, she does not exit from being his wife according to the stronger opinion, so the rulings of marriage apply to her: inheritance, the prohibition of a fifth [wife], the prohibition of her sister along with her, and other [rulings].

He is obligated to provide her maintenance (nafaqah) as long as she lives, even if he divorces her, and even if she marries after the divorce — according to caution; indeed, this is not devoid of strength [i.e., it has weight].

He is also obligated to pay the diyah (blood money) for the ifda', which is the diyah of a soul [full blood money]. If she is free, she is entitled to half the diyah of a man, in addition to the mahr (dowry) that she is entitled to by the contract and the consummation.

If he has intercourse with his wife after she completes nine [years] and causes ifda', she is not forbidden to him, and the diyah is not due; however, the cautious opinion is to provide maintenance for her as long as she lives, though the stronger opinion is that it is not obligatory.”

#Muslims tell us that these rules are a cultural peculiarity that cannot be criticized.

The moment I equate evil with a cultural peculiarity, curse me, for I will no longer be human.

#iran #freedom

Simply comparing the costs of #Bitcoin mining to the costs of paper #money production is flawed. Instead, we need to compare the total (direct and indirect) costs of both monetary systems. To make such a comparison, we must consider not only the significant damage that periodic #economic downturns inflict on the economy, but also the entire range of costs associated with the existence of an elastic, fully fiduciary, and state-controlled monetary standard.

The true costs of a fiat standard that must be taken into account include:

1) the costs imposed on society by various political groups in their attempts to establish control over the printing press;

2) the costs incurred by various interest groups in their attempts to induce the controller of the printing press to abuse its powers (i.e., print more money) for the benefit of particular groups;

3) the costs of inflation-induced misallocation of resources in the #economy that result from the monetary authority's concessions to interest group pressure; and

4) the costs incurred by entrepreneurs in trying to anticipate what the monetary authority will do in the future and in hedging against the probable, but uncertain, consequences of the monetary authority's irresponsibility.

Taking this into account, it is not difficult to see that the Bitcoin standard is cheaper than a fiat standard.

Core culture and ideas is slowly turning #Bitcoin into a big clunky conglomerate that goes out of its way to compete with Shitcoins that pose no threat to Bitcoin.

#Knots culture and ideas plays to Bitcoin's strength & competitive advantage as Sound Money.

Run Knots + BIP-110

Menger's ideas about the origins of #money are based on the key idea that money emerged through centuries-long processes within a market #economy, the result of countless decisions by #market participants seeking the most efficient means to achieve their personal goals. Monetary exchange developed as an unintended but necessary byproduct of the actions undertaken by individuals in pursuit of their immediate goals, and yet, over time, it formed a coherent and stable system because these actions promised each individual greater success in achieving their goals. Thus, the institution of money was not consciously devised to solve a specific problem, just as the mechanism of monetary exchange was not created with the goal of achieving specific macrostatistical aggregates.

In light of Menger's explanation of the origins of money, the answer to the question of how to devise and implement good money becomes clear.

The money that the market adopts is precisely the money that best fulfills the socially coordinating function of a universal medium of exchange. It is the product of natural selection by the market—a process that takes into account the experience and knowledge of literally millions of people.

To argue that the money chosen by the market can and should be improved is to heroically assume that countless participants in transactions have consistently and repeatedly misjudged the relative benefits and costs inherent in alternative media of exchange.

Moreover, as Menger notes, the recurring formation of market prices is analogous to the emergence of money in that both are the result of the anonymous efforts of countless individuals who comprise the market process.

If, therefore, the market process can be relied upon to determine the "correct" and generally accepted prices for an almost infinite variety of goods, then we can certainly be confident that the same process will help us to find and introduce the "correct" medium of exchange, and then to continually and intelligently adjust this institution in accordance with changing economic conditions.
#bitcoin

The tendency to view the world in terms of eternity and immutability was characteristic of medieval man; the widespread desire of our contemporaries to have a constant general price level may be a relic of medieval mentalities.

If I tell a banker I want to clear half his vault of gold and replace it with pictures, he'll probably kick me out and say, "Go home, boy. This is no place for children."

But if I tell #bitcoin_core the same thing, they'll hire me for the development team.

#bitcoin #bip110 #knots

The fungibility of #money, combined with the familiar nature of the jewelers' business, led to the transformation of banking—from a safekeeping relationship to a debt-based one. The question of how this change in legal relations occurred is posed by Powell: "When was the doctrine adopted that a banker is simply a debtor, and not a bailee, much less a trustee, of his clients' funds? What circumstances led to this change in his legal status and created an economic 'sport' that led to the degeneration of the financial system, immeasurably increasing its power? How did receipts and vouchers lose their connection with a specific deposit and come to refer only to the banker as a whole?"

Changes occurred evolutionarily.

In the 17th and 18th centuries, #bank customers went to court over fractional-reserve banking and the legal status of customer deposits. The courts almost always ruled that the banker was simply a debtor, not a bailee or trustee. Why? Primarily because the money or coins in custody lacked distinguishing features. This condition was a sine qua non in cases of theft or robbery: the courts believed that stolen property or goods must be identifiable. But the coins of a specific customer could not be identified. Thus, due to the natural fungibility of money, the banker could not be held liable as a bailee.

The courts treated cases involving banks the same way they would any other cases involving fraud or theft; they simply did not see the special nature of cash deposits.

As a result, “unpackaged and therefore unidentifiable coins were transferred for safekeeping, and the only course of action for the custodian to return the money was debt.”

This problem was finally resolved in #England only in the early 19th century.

Some depositors again questioned the traditional decisions of the English courts, arguing that "banks should be held liable no less than the class of bailees, which includes shipping companies, innkeepers, and others." However, "in 1833, in the case of Pitts v. Glegg, the court held that sums credited to a client's account by a banker, although usually called deposits, were in fact loans from the client to the banker."

Nevertheless, the courts recognized that the use of the term "deposit" was misleading, although they allowed bankers to use it. Developing this view, Lord Cottenham, in Foley v. Hill in 1848, held: "Money deposited with a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the banker's money, who is free to do with it as he pleases. He is not guilty of breach of trust in using it. He is not liable to the principal for exposing it to danger by engaging in a casual speculation; he is not bound to keep it or treat it as the principal's property, but he is certainly liable for the amount, because, having received it, he contracted to pay the principal, on demand, a sum equivalent to what he received."

#bitcoin