Correct, all modern currencies are counterfeit, including the bitcoins. The countries that have high productive output, like China have currencies that are as counterfeit as the largest welfare recipients, like the USA.

Fake money is created all over the world to steal productivity of the individuals to subsidise the powerful government Mafia structures. The people are hurt, the wealth is stolen. The difference is that while the Chinese government is stealing from the Chinese people with inflation, USA government is stealing from the Chinese as well, such is the property of being 'world reserve currency'. You get to steal from other nations with your inflation while the rest can only steal from their own.

There is a sure way to tell if paper money is counterfeit and it doen't require blowing. Is it fiat printed by a government controlled agency and it has no savings behind it, as in there are no gold reserves that the paper came be used to redeem? It is counterfeit.

Real money is not created by a government but by voluntary market decisions. If a government controls issuing of currency and it removes free market regulations from the process then the government is counterfeiting the money.

Are your kidneys theft? You have kidneys, that's theft. Also your eyes and all other body parts, it's complete theft.

- the care for orphaned children is provided by private charities without any questions. As a child, your entire existence depends on others for some time, and yes, your parents brought you to this world it is their responsibility. If they don't want you plenty of charity orphanages exist around the world and in a free market environment adoption is much easier than what it is today. Plenty of people want to adopt children.

- and presumably you are a wanted child, if you are not, again, there are adoption and orphanage routes. Worst case scenario you get tossed into a trash bin, but those cases exist under any social/economic systems, the point of children has no merit in these discussions.

In fact the SS was originally set up in the states for 'widows and orphans', well it was an obvious welfare scam from the very beginning and should never have started, but it was because of the wrong idea that the market is unable somehow to deal with edge case scenarios that you want base the policy upon and cram it down everybody's throats.

- profit driven free market capitalist society is a wealthiest society that can possibly be built without violence against individuals, thus it is the most moral society and in such a society there are enough resources for every form of private care to exist, from charities and orphanages simply to adoption where it concerns children.

- nobody is and nobody should be. Forcing people is immoral however it is done.

However without government rules on hiring/firing practices there are no issues for people to find apprenticeship positions. I run a business and I have people that start working here for free just to learn the skills. Governments stand in the way of apprenticeship positions, many people would not refuse free / cheap labour and help in exchange for letting a person to work and learn on the job.

- wrong, capitalism is private ownership and operation of property and in a free market settings (absent government meddling) there is no need to force anybody to start businesses and to hire at market clearing prices.

Clearly you have a huge problem understanding what a market clearing mechanism absent government intervention is. You apparently want to force people to hire others or to force people to feed others for some unbelievable insane reasons that you interpret as 'morality', while what you are actually doing is engaging in the most immoral act of all: initiating act of violence against individuals.

- wrong, collectively you own absolutely nothing. Every time one can in such a 'collective ownership', one pulls the blanket to himself, stealing, cheating, doing whatever he can to take that 'collective' possession (a contradiction in terms) and make it his or her own individual possession.

- you are absolutely 100% wrong. Clearly you don't understand where wealth comes from and what it is.

When I build my systems I create new wealth that never existed before. When somebody takes some mud and turns it into a piece of art or into a brick they create some wealth that didn't exist before. When a person writes a book or a new sheet of music he creates wealth that didn't exist before and nobody gave it to them, it didn't exist, it was created out of nothing just because people wanted / needed to create it. Wealth comes from desire for better life and poverty comes from envy for the wealth of others and from desire to initiate violence and steal.

- in a free market capitalist system a capitalist can create more and more wealth and save it, which is great, that's how the capitalist can now invest into more and more ambitious projects and if his projects fail the rest of the society is not forced to pick up the pieces and repay the loss to the capitalist.

In the system we have today if you are a politically connected person, you are using the non-free market system, that provides you with advantages that are first stolen, taken away from individuals who are not free, but have violence initiated against them by the State to provide these non-free market redistributive pay outs to people that now have plenty of moral hazard accumulated in the system, plenty of reasons to gamble with money, be it their own savings or savings of anybody at all and they know that they cannot lose because there is the police, the army and the entire ridiculous government system standing behind them, giving them back anything they lose.

The real losers in your non-free market system are the poor of-course, because the rich will always have what they need but the poor suffer most under socialist/fascist/dictatorial systems, because there is no free market to grow the wealth at all, there is only one pie and as it shrinks the crumbs that you get are harder and harder to fight for, so you desire for bigger and bigger government to initiate force on your behalf to get you those crumbs.

You are eating yourself to death and you don't know it.

- tell me, how did you arrive to a situation in a free market capitalist economy where you and your friends have 'all the money' and 'all the property' and 'all the food'?

You are building a strange enough hypothetical situation, which falls apart once you realise that in a free market capitalist economy you could not arrive at that destination. You can't own everything around you while the rest of the people own nothing, that's not possible within an actual free market system, which requires that government is not preventing people from competition.

The only thing that actually creates real monopolies is government threat of violence. Today in Toronto UberX is being fought by the city government to try and protect the existing business models that the city is involved in (taxi licensing, etc.) and they do it under the guise of 'protecting the people'. Well sure, they are protecting some people at the expense of everybody else, who would rather do business with UberX than with government protected and licensed monopolies.

You create a hypothetical out of vacuum while pretending that a situation like that arises in a free market capitalist system, it does not.

In a free market capitalist system you are born a free person, a family or a charity is taking care of you or you while you are a child and eventually you learn from peers and become an apprentice in a business, studying it, learning the skills necessary to provide others within the same market conditions with the output of your own labour. You don't 'own everything', you only own what you can earn and with time your earning potential increases.

A situation with too much labour and not enough jobs only arises in government manipulated economies, which are not free market economies. In a free market capitalist economy markets discover prices that allow markets to clear, that means the prices adjust accordingly to the supply and demand for all things, including all types of labour and capital and land and other assets and resources.

So my argument doesn't fall apart, you can pretend that a situation that you describe will arise in such settings, but it does not, a situation that you describe arises in a non-free economy, in a non-capitalist economy.

A capitalist economy means private ownership and operation of property, this includes your own body and that is what gives us self determination - ability to operate our bodies free from government intervention and manipulation and our bodies extend to the fruits of our labour, which required us to input some kind of work, taking away from our leisure and doing work that somebody finds useful and is willing to exchange fruits of his/her for your productive output voluntarily.

In a situation when a person appears out of nowhere who has nothing and is in need of some help, people never refused others some help, but this is absolutely different from all forms of government tyranny, the tyranny of the State, that steals from us supposedly to 'help'.

It is unacceptable to declare some form of moral authority based on theft and initiation of violent force.

Capitalism (private ownership and operation of property) in a free market system (system free of government intervention) has proven to be the best system for generating profits while improving the overall economy for all people involved. People tossed out the free market and they are trying really hard to toss out capitalism as well, they saw all the wealth generated in a free market capitalist system and believe that that wealth is gained somehow immorally, however I argue that making profits in a capitalist free market system is the most moral way to run an economy.

I say the most moral and I mean exactly that:profit motive in a free market capitalist system is the most moral way to run an economy. All other ways to run an economy require reduction of freedoms (bigger government) and reduction of property rights (move from capitalism to any form of dictatorship, be it socialism or fascism, which are almost the same thing exactly or be it just a singular ruler or a feudal system). Anything that reduces individual freedoms is less moral than anything that increases individual freedoms. Anything that reduces private property rights and self determination through these rights is less moral than than anything that increases private property rights and self determination.

AFAIC the profit motive is the most moral way to run a society because it is the most moral way to run an economy without stealing and without using collective violence against an individual.

All of your claims are wrong and yes, you are using a ton of fallacies while making these wrong claims.

REPUBLICANS did this?

Not so fast. This was obviously written by a partisan hack from the democrat side. How do I know?

1. Republicans do not yet control the senate. Despite having a good election and winning the majority of seats in the senate, they will not be seated until JANUARY 2015. We are in a lame duck congress, meaning the only thing that has changed from before the election is some senators know they are going home soon. The names have not yet changed on the office doors. Democrats are still in control.

2. This bill passed the Republican controlled house, meaning it had to receive at least SOME Republican support.

3. A number of Republican Senators voted for cloture on the bill which required 60 votes. This means there where democrats that DID NOT vote for cloture.

So, Why would Slashdot engage in something so obviously partisan and blame Republicans? Shame on you. This bill's fate was decided by both sides, not just one.

The article is misleading. Some Republican Senators voted for cloture. This bill also was passed by the Republican controlled house. It's failure to proceed was bipartisan, and included a number of democrats not voting for cloture. Like it or not, Republicans are NOT YET in control of the Senate. The new congress is not seated until January 2015.

Oh, and need we point out that Republican votes were required to get it out of the house and all that failed was a cloture vote to cut off debate...

Not to mention that a number of Republicans actually voted FOR cloture...

Works for me, propane is a bit more expensive than CNG, but why not? It's been used for a long time as a motor fuel too. Hydrogen is still just a stupid idea though.

Where, pray tell, are you going to get burnable hydrogen? From Water? Have fun with that.

You obviously don't understand what it takes to convert water into hydrogen fuel. HINT: Lots and LOTS of electricity, which, despite what you might think, cannot be produced for free. Windmills and solar cells cost money and harm the environment. Industrially, Hydrogen is currently produced FROM Natural Gas, not water.

But never mind all that.... Try this one. Using hydrogen as a method to "store energy" is a stupid approach. You would be better off using currently available battery technologies (lead acid, Li-Ion etc) by nearly 10 times.

Oh sure Natural Gas is cheaper, it has to be.

As I posted previously, where do you suppose we get hydrogen now? For industrial supplies we reform natural gas, which involves steam and fairly high temperatures. Processing and storage of hydrogen is harder than for natural gas. So, hydrogen will be more expensive, it simply has to be. Start with Natural gas, process by adding heat to get hydrogen, suffer larger losses in the storage and distribution of hydrogen and it will ALWAYS be more expensive.

And before you start down the "just use solar/wind power to split hydrogen" understand that neither of these technologies are cost effective and doing what you suggest is much less efficient than even Lithium Ion batteries.

Next to the cell phone.

Again, just in case it wasn't clear from my first response. Who is concerned about Hydrogen's safety? Hydrogen Gas is no less safe than Natural Gas and I'm not debating this aspect.

What I AM saying is that Hydrogen is a stupid idea when you consider the engineering efficiency of the whole system. Just burn Natural Gas as a motor fuel, it's easier and more efficient (and cheaper as a result).