Topic: Are Bitcoiners Neoliberals? - page 4. (Read 9255 times)

Yes.

The point isn't that it's going to appear, it's that it already exists, but many people don't do anything because their wealth is being pillaged, and they expect the government to take care of it.

Another important point about Rockefeller and others like him is not only was he generous in the absence of government intervention, but that he was tremendously concerned about actually fixing the problems that led to the poverty to begin with. He favored education over handouts, for example.

When your own personal money is being spent, you are much more concerned about how that money is being spent. When the government does it, people are by-and-large disinterested in actual results. It doesn't matter, for instance, that drug rehabilitation is almost totally ineffective. We just keep dumping money into schemes that try to fix these people.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/06/AR2010080602660.html

Of course there are private business' that do the same stupid practices, but the difference is they are paid by people with their own money, not by stealing from everyone at large to pay for it. Medicaid will sometimes pay for it, Medicare will cover it if it's accepted, and just go to your local Community Mental Health organization to find out all the different schemes they have to try to "help" drug abusers and alcoholics that are total wastes of time, effort, and money in the long run.


This is a "Straw Man argument" because you're arguing a position that I didn't take. I never said that if we got rid of government all the sudden every single orphan would get adopted.

I'm not under the illusion that when people exist in anarchy that all problems disappear; The lame walk, the blind see, and healthy food is piled like mountains on every street corner.

When people are free to do as they like and to be commensurately rewarded for their efforts, then people will work for the benefit of their neighbor even if they think they are acting in their own self interest. Wonderful prosperity occurs, but it's not magic.


It's pretty difficult to engage in counter-factuals. I don't know what Rockefeller would have said under government tyranny, but what I can guarantee is that he would not have been able to succeed to the extent that he did under the government intervention that we see today.
Because of anti-trust laws Standard Oil would have never come to be, he would never have gotten the wealth that he did, and so he couldn't possibly decide how to contribute his own money (Again, because he wouldn't have it).

Wow, I'm so glad you wrote this. When I say that "People think armeggedon will take place if government steps aside" sometimes I think maybe I'm not giving people enough credit, but clearly that stereotype is true for at least one person.

The world is not going to end if government stops interfering in people's lives. The sun will still rise, crops will still grow, and people can still deal with eachother. There was absolutely astonishing improvement in the lives of the poor long before the "great society" projects of the 1900's.

"The thesis of his first Essay on Population, publish in 1789, was that dreams of universal affluence were vain, because there was an inevitable tendency for population to exceed the food supply. 'Population, when unchecked, in creases in geo-metrical ratio. Subsistence increases only in arithmetical ratio.' There is a fixed limit to the supply of land and the size of the crop that can be grown per acre. Malthus spells out what he sees as the fateful consequences of this disproportion:
 'In the United States of America, where the means of subsistence have been more ample ... than in any of the modern states of Europe, the population has been found to double itself in twenty-five years...'" -Henry Hazlitt, The Conquest of poverty.

Of all the things you can say about the 1700's under free market capitalism, the one thing you cannot deny is that food production skyrocketed. (Despite Malthus' incorrect fearmongering nonsense.)
Malthus is literally freaking out because of how much free market capitalism helped feed everyone, including the poor.

https://mises.org/books/conquest.pdf
http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=74

The beauty of capitalism is that it doesn't require people to be altruistic in order to do tremendous good for the poor. Rockefeller was a tremendous benefactor, but his company did far more for the poor then even he gave in charity.

In the free market there may be less dollars dumped into programs to help the poor, but what is put into charities would be far more effective per dollar, and would certainly out-do our current ineffectual schemes by a wide margin.

It was founded in defiance of tyranny. Read the declaration of Independence.

I have spent decades with people whose profession it is to work with these people and I can tell you my perspective has only strengthened over time.
I have tremendous sympathy. There are so many people in this world that have gotten beaten into the dirt by circumstances completely out of their control, and often have nowhere to turn.
The question isn't about whether or not these people exist, or whether or not these people need assistance, the question is about "How do we best help these people so that our time, money, and effort isn't wasted?"
The government has proven time and time again that there are only two things that it is good at;
1.) Wasting your time, money, and effort.
2.) Sending young men off to kill or put in cages other men, women, and children; Innocent and guilty alike.

Edit: Woops, had the quotes all mixed up.

It is okay to have opinions. However, the absence of empirical data or references in your arguments makes it difficult for me to address them.

Anyway, the average per capita income for Indonesia is $3,475 (about Rp42 million). The figure is highly skewed however, as the majority of high income citizens reside in Sumatra and Java. The taxation rate for those earning between Rp24 and Rp50 million is 0-5% (page 16). There are not many among Kalimantan's 15 million who actually qualify to pay taxes, as it is one of the poorest provinces in Indonesia - hence why the East Kalimantan and North Kalimantan provincial governments depend heavily on the the central government for funding. Check data.html?task=download&cid[0">=179]this out. Almost the entire infrastructural and development spending for the two provinces in 2013 is funded by a central government agency. Fyi, the local hoodlums there, as well as corrupt officials, are mainly 'financed' by timber and palm oil companies - not tax dollars. So you see, I honestly don't see how implementing a tax-free regime in Borneo, whether in Kalimantan or Sabah or Sarawak or Brunei or Labuan, will make things better for the people there.

Re Guangdong, in Guangzhou, a short distance from the Twin Towers.
But China isn't really a great example for anything, either way.
Apart from North Korea, I can't think of many other places where foreigners are more boxed in. Further, observations about China often miss (or entirely discount) the powerful patriachal effect enjoyed by government and military officials over the general population. It is nigh impossible to understand China without first understanding the deeply embedded quasi-religious form of patriarchy and social hierarchy there.

You cannot really generalize every bitcoiners. There might be bitcoin users who are neo nazi, racist etc. You cannot generalize them

I'm saying thats what i've seen, specifically in Central Kalimantan. If you don't think i'm capable of determining this that's fine with me, in which case i highly recommend you go and see for yourself. Just because it doesn't appear in western historic literature doesn't mean that it doesn't happen.

Malaysian government is significantly less corrupt (and more functional) than Indonesian government which is why i referenced central Borneo(Kalimantan) instead of Malaysian Borneo. Where abouts in Guangdong did you stay?

I can't remember names of specific communities and google maps doesn't have anything aside from the major cities listed. I flew into Palangka Raya and spent a few months riding motorbikes around and staying with locals, visiting schools/orphanages and teaching children amongst other things.

The government does nothing except extract taxes in alot of those places (it really is nothing more than a mafia, watch "the art of killing" for a better idea of what goes on) sometimes not even that and the people have very little in the way of financial wealth yet they still do better at looking after underprivileged than we do.

No, that's what you're saying, based on a notion that has never had a precedent in the entire recorded human history.



Could you name some of those communities?

[/quote]

I actually have spent time in Sabah and Sarawak in Borneo, and Guangdong in China.
I have come to no such realizations, though.

As a matter of fact, the people of Sabah and Sarawak (excluding the small number of indigenous tribes in the rainforest) depend on the government for their free inoculation, almost free healthcare (equivalent to $0.30 per visit to a GP + free medication) and free education.

He's saying that the same people who are doing it now will continue to do it but instead of putting tenders to government for funding, they will be directly funded by people. The argument could be made that in the absence of a violent (and inefficient) monopoly claiming responsibility for remediation of a VERY important issue, the quality of care that underprivileged get will be significantly better without them.


Depends on what society you're talking about. What i've noticed whilst travelling is that in countries where governments are too corrupt to provide welfare, the communities look after the underprivileged themselves... In fact, i would say that the safety net is far better in some cases. The deciding factor is resources really.


I Wholeheartedly agree with your aspirations! I think that it is essential to strive for the best possible morals and ethics. I that unless we can all agree on an objective (not a subjective culturally biased) and universal standard for ethics based off something that we all know gets results and works ie:the scientific method, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes of history.

There are such frameworks out there already if you choose to take that long arduous path to self knowledge, but doing the right thing is never easy.

Do me a favour, spend some time in central Borneo or rural China. You'll realise that people can and do solve these problems without government interference.

This reminds me the Dead Milkmen song, Punk Rock Girl


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyaK3jo4Sl4

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are suggesting that in the absence of taxes - which means that the government will not be able to provide financial aid to orphans - altruistic people will suddenly emerge to adopt and take care of these orphans?
What is stopping these altrustic people from adopting these orphans right now?
Altruism does not depend on any set circumstances before it can appear.

As per the Oxford Dictionary, altruism is defined as "Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others".
Not "Disinterested and selfless concern for the well-being of others after certain conditions are met."
Altruism should mean that all of the 400,000 orphans that society as a whole do not want would be adopted by families annually - now.

Since the dawn of time, has this ever happened before? Has societies, collectively, voluntarily decide to adopt every orphan, provide assistance to single mothers, and care for their old, sick and handicapped? No, it hasn't - other than a few truly altruistic individuals, society has largely turned a blind eye to the plight of others.

I may have missed your post about Rockeller, but that merely weakens your argument. Rockefeller chose to be altruistic. He didn't set specific conditions.
He didn't say "I will start to be altruistic if the government stop taxing my income".

If your wish comes true, if  welfare spending goes down to zero, then you will see society as a whole crumble. Children will be begging and scavenging for food everywhere. Many would be used and abused by some of the more psychopathic elements of society. Single mothers, the old, the handicapped, the sick and the underfed would all suffer the same fate. People will give wide berths walking past dead bodies lying in the streets.

Too extreme you say? Guess what? It has happened before, repeatedly, throughout human history. No heroic altrustic brigade has ever emerged to take care of the weaker members of society. Sure, there have been a few exceptions to that, individuals and small charities, but those has always been the exceptions rather than the rule.

The United States was never meant to mimic a dystopian Elizabethan society of feudal lords, land barons, merchant princes and a permanent serf class devoid of any chance of upward economic and social mobility.  The establishment of the United States was a direct result of the Age of Enlightenment. It aspired to be something greater, something more noble.

Is the government we have now perfect? Hell no. But that doesn't mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water.
Instead, we should work on fixing it. We fight to find the equilibrium between wealth, virtue and compassion.
Shouldn't we all aspire to be the best that we can possibly be, morally, ethically and financially, instead of devolving into small clusters defined narrowly and exclusively by self-preservation?

Doing the right thing is never easy.

Do me a favor. This weekend, make a trip to a local orphanage or centers for single mothers or the handicapped. Spend a few hours there. I swear, your whole perspective will change.

I'm definitely not a neo-liberal. I'm a total Anarchist with the most extreme views. I feel that every government should be disbanded and replaced with companies that are staffed with volunteers who work to serve the citizens of their country

Education in it's current form should be outlawed because all that we are seeing today is the dumbing down of the worlds populace. Creativity should be at the forefront, not the ability to regurgitate information. Police power should be severely reduced and restricted

The requester of any form of a TAX should be charged with treason and left to hang. If the state needs to be funded they can add VAT to every retail product which is more morally correct

and finance should be totally deregulated so that we can finally usher in the age of the bitcoin for the masses

Altruism exists whether or not the unfortunate party is being helped? Whether or not the unfortunate party is actually unfortunate? Whether or not the person knows about any kind of unfortunate circumstance that happened?

What do you mean that "Altruism exists regardless of circumstances"?

Did you miss my post about Rockefeller? That man gave, of his own free will, more than you or any of your ancestors made in their entire lifetimes put together (Adjusted for inflation). That's not even including the incalculable benefit to mankind that his company was; Standard Oil.

Also, the basis of Democracy is that 51% of voters ultimately know what's best for the rest of us. For anything altruistic to come out of it, you have to presuppose that at least 51% of voters are altruistic. So you've already said that altruistic people already exist in vast quantities! I am not quite as optimistic as you are, but clearly you're a bit confused about which side of the fence you're on.


If only we could get that spending to fall to 0% of GDP.

The point wasn't about spending in particular. The point is that our government overlords spend a tremendous amount of money and they have almost nothing to show for it. That maybe it's rational to think that the government could take care of what they claim under their sphere of influence given their colossal budget.


It's kind of surreal to read this. It's like looking at a man beat his slave and then saying, "You know, the problem here is asymmetry". I'd say, "I agree I suppose, but shouldn't we end slavery?"

Isn't that kind of the moral crux of the issue? Molyneux calls it the "gun in the room", akin to the elephant in the room. Sure we can have debates about whether or not we should send people out to murder dark skinned people in the far east, and sure it's totally fine to discuss whether or not we should put people away for life for having certain herbs in their pockets, but can we have the discussion about whether or not this entire political system is justified? Not among "polite" company.

What's worse is if you want to just be left alone on your own property. Men in silly blue costumes will come and take you away for not paying for permission to live on your own land, or maybe you weren't paying them "their cut" of your salary. Either way, that's enough to put you into a rape cage. Bizarre, immoral.

Good luck. I read the wikipedia page and then part of a book by David Harvey. You can find info in my responses on the thread, but I warn you: no one cares. They just pretend "neoliberal" means something and use it to refer to people and ideas they-don't-like without saying who those people are or what the ideas are.

There's been an outstanding question from two of us on the thread from the beginning:

Name one person who self-identifies as a neoliberal.

No one can. No one will. No one cares.

Exactly. The key is in finding an equilibrium and enhancing efficiency.

As far as straw man arguments go, yours must be the weirdest I've encountered in a long while. Give it another try.

Also, your suggestion implies that altruism and altruistic people are holding back because someone else, i.e., the government, is doing it. That's not altruism. Altruism exists regardless of any circumstances. Suggesting that altruism will suddenly emerge in the absence of a government is, forgive my language, breathtakingly delusional.

For the record, the welfare spending for the U.S. in 2014 will amount to $264.4 billion. That includes unemployment assistance, food programs, foster systems and many others. Walmart and Exxonmobil generate almost twice as much in revenue annually, and these two companies actually enjoy preferential tax rebates. As a percentage of GDP, the figure has been on a downward spiral for the past three decades.



Let's also agree that I am not interested to pander to your snide, childish remarks.

Explain what Neoliberals are.

For most people it is not about paying taxes or not paying taxes, it is a matter of paying too much because much of the money is wasted.

As for taxes being too high the main problem with government is the incentives.  There is no incentive to end things that are no longer needed.  A government program can be started at the drop of a hat but it can be next to impossible to end a program when it is no longer beneficial.  That asymmetry is the problem.

We can agree on this. I'm absolutely perfectly okay with you paying taxes. Pay all the taxes you want.

So to be clear; 51% of people are altruistic enough to provide badly for 400,000 orphans, but those same 51% that voted for the bad support those children are getting today, would not exist absent the government?

I would suggest that maybe most people don't go out of their way to help people because they expect the government to take care of it. That's pretty reasonable considering the United States Government spent $3,450,000,000,000 in 2013, since that's about twice as much money as you would need to give each of those orphans $50,000 every year for 90 years (in a one year budget, I remind you.).

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2015/assets/tables.pdf

So, there are still people out there, who don't understand, that their peer-group is not a reflection of the whole world?
If you have never met a person, that disagrees with you, than you should maybe try meeting new people.

I notice there are still people on the thread using "neoliberal" as a synonym for "anarcho-capitalist."

This makes the thread terrible for discussion but very useful for something else:

This thread provides a good list of dishonest forum members.