Topic: Bitcoin Austrian Economic Study Group - page 4. (Read 12698 times)

We have this thing called voluntarism and the freedom of association. Try it sometime.

Hahahaha, nice one.

Fascism. "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Interestingly, corporatism is more closely associated with fascism as in Mussolini's Italy.

I'll invoke Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

...with a good Public Relations Department.

Democracy is a form of opresion. I think democrats and facists are inmoral people. Democracy is just a lighweigth facisms.

I like political discussions, but this is not one. I leave it here for today.

A direct democracy kill Socrates for corrupting the youth and for not believing in the gods!

This is why I am in favor of democracy; it solves those problems.

There is nothing to regain. The government has always been and always will be a tool of opresion to favour a few at the expense of the many. By supporting it and justifying it you are just giving legitimization to the abuse.


This is not entirely true. The word capitalists had been used before Karl Marx by some market anarchists and in a pejorative way. I dont like much the word capitalism. I prefer free market. Its more clear and less politically charged. But a word is just a word, it really does not matter. Ideas its what's important.

All these things happen is because government create bad incentives and there's little incentives for government to abide by the rule of law. Well, there are incentives, but these incentives get eroded by the way government is structured and the way governments work. The power of coercion tends to lead to nasty things.

It have little to do with libertarians not taking control of power.(Which is by the way, nigh impossible. Libertarians and power don't mix.)

Then you do not understand what capitalism actually is.  The word, ironicly, was coined by Karl Marx.  He made it and 'ism' because he wanted to paint it as an ideology.  It's not an ideology, it's a collective description of the free exchanges of individuals within a working free market.  There is no example of true capitalism anywhere in the world that I can point to, because the closest thing to capitalism that still exists is the illicit drug trade.  State capitalism isn't capitalism, it's merely a soft form of national socialism.

Then your best bet is to regain control of the government. Don't disarm yourself by eliminating the only tool at your disposal. You are doomed to failure if you think you can start from scratch against power that already controls the resources you require for survival.

That is your conjecture, with which I disagree. Singular control over an important resource does not require a government; it simply requires force. The source of force can stem from economic power, accumulated in the absence of what we know recognize as a state.


I wonder then, what are the benefits of the "free market" if they don't include at least enhanced information regarding products and practices? Wouldn't you like to know that there isn't poison in milk? Or that slave labor wasn't involved in production? In the absence of the state, what is to compel a powerful economic entity (for example, an extra-legal monopoly) to keep from making money via dangerous products or coercive conditions?

You cannot simply state that the absence of the state will result in the collapse of large private power concentrations. How will this happen? What is to keep private power from filling the void? How do we know that this won't result in some modern form of feudalism? You have taken on a heavy burden of proof.


I do understand. I also understand that, at least where I live, slavery is considered a gross obscenity, and I trust people to formulate policy appropriately.


Because you understand the difference between the tool and the injustices brought on by the wielder of the tool. You understand the tactic of retaining a dangerous tool because it can still be used towards a worthy end.


I know what a democracy is. The core disagreement here is that you seem to think less of people that I, in which case you are in even bigger trouble in the face of private power without the moderating effect of the state.

No cartel had ever win with collusion in the marketplace. They all eventually self-destruct.

"Anti-trust" laws are used against smaller companies rather than large corporations because it is easier to bully smaller companies into submission.

Then the government turns around and give companies monopolies via patents and copyright. Now, they have a much easier time to maintain their cartel.

Government doesn't protect competition. It squashes competition.

History proves that monopolies are a creation of government. There can not be a sustainable monopoly without regulations.

The big companies and accumulation of wealth happen because of regulations and government intervention.


Perfect information does not exists. Its stupid to define something with impossible demands. Free market does not involve perfect nothing.


I dont think you understand what a democracy is. Slavery is perfectly valid under a democracy if the majority of the people votes to legalize it.


No, I would not outlaw firearms. I dont understand what it has to do though.


I dont like Adam Smith too much, that is true.

I really think you dont know what democracy is. Democracy is the rule of the majority. And in real life is a system where the more politically adapted get their way imposed over the rest.

I don't see how you expect contracts to be enforced. A sufficiently large company can contract their own private forces (mercs) to support their "economic interests." This already happens.

Most of us are not interested in Smith's market, which was required to be free and "fair", for a definition of "fair" that conflicts with "free".

We're interested in markets that are free of violence or the threat thereof. Nothing more, nothing less. As far as we're concerned, such markets also happen to be fair.

I'll go with the definition by Webster. I don't know where you live, but I challenge you to demonstrate how western societies are democracies - where the population (not just elites) are discussing, proposing, and implementing policies.


Yes. This can be changed, of course. It wasn't always this way.


Or a company can make a certain important product with no competition via collusion and other means, which are well known to anyone with even a cursory understanding of history. The end result can be quite the same. That's what monopolies do. It is trivial to show how your assertions are false.


What is to compel a powerful company to disclose perfect information regarding its products or practices? What do you think the advertising industry is all about?


The institution of slavery is itself inherently undemocratic and unjust. This should be obvious.

I notice you dodged the question immediately following:


Care to try?


War is peace (and all that). You and I use different meanings for words. I'll go with Noah Webster. Oxford English is just as good, I suppose.


The market doesn't even exist in the way Adam Smith defined it. You have missed the point spectacularly.

How do we know when to inflate and when to deflate?  

We don't. Let the market which kind of money/currency/etc is the best in the world.

Ya know why I like bitcoin? I can save and not have to worry about it losing value due to someone printing it. Why would I want to store my saving in inflatecoin?