Considering that the website is ran by and frequented by people who don't believe in free trade, or even *money*, as a positive social order; I wouldn't think that any argument for bitcoins would be well received.  Other sites might prove to be worthy places to make such an effort, but not this one.

Check out the Global Settlement Foundation's Public Notice.

I found that hilarious!

There are a few I have noticed or mentioned bitcoin in.

http://fr33agents.ning.com/group/fansofbitcoin

http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=21116.15

http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=33875.0

I responded to the post that thought that all coins were lost if the network split.

I haven't been to all of the other sites mentioned on this thread, but I will say that it astounds me the decided lack of economics education and how some people have some downright silly notions of what money really is.  Yes, we've had some discussions along that line on this forum too, but it is especially interesting to see this discussion among a group that thinks the "Star Trek" future of money might happen where nobody really needs the stuff.

BTW, I think that is the one thing Gene Roddenberry got flat out wrong about the future of humanity, and something even the later Star Trek writers figured out when they introduced "gold-pressed latinum" and monetary economics into the script... or a "secondary currency" of Romulan ale.  Since he was writing fiction (or filming it as it may be), minor things like economics don't really need to be examined too closely.

I would love to see how a "money-less" society could ever function realistically in term of the allocation of scarce resources, shy of a dictatorial and centralized authority that controls those resources through sheer force of arms and arbitrary whim.  That is how I allocate chocolate in my household between my kids (if they aren't revolting and stealing it from me), but that is not a workable system that preserves liberties in the long run.  I even introduced a family currency precisely because of this situation... an experiment I'll have to describe elsewhere.

Getting back to the main point of this thread:  I agree that we need to "spread the word" and try to engage other communities (including "on-line" communities) to the concept of Bitcoins.  I have a notion to do just that elsewhere myself, including a couple places that I think may be much more receptive to the concept.  Caution needs to happen though to not try and change what may be core beliefs of the community, as is apparently the problem with this particular thread on thezeitgeistmovement.com.  It is also very useful not to get into fights with the moderators, as happened on this site.  The battle over the links (other than to Bitcoins itself) is a fight that doesn't necessarily have to be won to simply get the message out, even if I think the controversy is sort of silly in the first place.

It is also refreshing to me in terms of seeing the reactions of people with a very different mindset about Bitcoins in terms of what things ought to be considered when presenting the concept to new groups.  If anything, I consider this thread on the Zeitgeist forum to be something very productive to read even if there is some hostility there.  Know that even if the concept is being attacked, at least the concept is being brought up and people are at least looking at the idea.  That is a good thing and by far and away a better kind of thread than one which expresses the concept and then nobody else responds.

He declared himself an equal sovereign to King John and wrote his own 300 plus page magna carta!

I don't think it took the English nearly 300 pages and they FORCED the king to sign it. I think he is a very silly silly man!

Well, under Common Law you have societies. Societies can have their own language. (Ask the Law Society about their creation: legalese.)

Those who use Bitcoins could join/create a separate society. They could, in theory, define money/wealth/currency/person/corporation/dog/cat/apple to mean whatever they want. They could even have their own dictionary that their society uses to interpret from.

The problem lies in tacit consent and assumption. Those who are part of the "other" (de facto) society will assume that the words that are being used are already defined (and can be redefined) by them. They can also trick you into tacitly agreeing with their definitions as well. Or trick you into granting them jurisdiction in situations where they normally wouldn't have it.

The best way to operate is to not cause conflict. Those who flagrantly mail out nutty looking paperwork to government officials will find themselves under abnormal scrutiny.

I hide in plain sight. I keep my politics within my group of friends. I refuse to obey laws that enslave me. I live modestly and don't make extravagant purchases or flash money around. I try to stay off of the radars of the so-called authorities. I am completely free this way.

I hope the owner of GSF would do the same. I'm not saying that he should give up. He shouldn't. He should keep a lower profile, and tone his politics down. They have no place in business.

Cheers!

I think I'll copy all his stuff and declare myself sovereign of North America. That way in the post collapse aftermath, if people are stupid enough to accept him as a global leader, I'll have equal claim!

I don't have any reason to mock you, but I do wonder why you find nationality such an important factor.