Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 11. (Read 33774 times)

Opposite, as in it was a privatisation of the nations assets ?
Well, you might have an argument there I suppose. But for the fact that it was the original intention to limit the size of the homesteads, presumably on democratic grounds. It was different, for eg., to the recent Royal Mail privatisation in the UK, whereby the company was floated on the stock exchange and the ownership and control thereof was effectively granted to the highest institutional bidder   i.e. Royal Mail, that 300 year old great British institution, is now most likely in the hands of a US financial oligopoly like Goldman Sachs.
   The Homestead Act didn't have that intent. It may have had that long term outcome - you would know the answer to that better than me, but I don't believe that was the intention.

Or opposite, as in unfettered free market libertarianism ?
If that be the case then why aren't those great proponents of libertarianism the Koch brothers dividing up Koch Ranches Inc. 239,000 acres into nice little homesteads on the basis of libertarian ideals and in the quest for perfect competition within the free and unregulated market ? Which is, after all, what all good libertarians are after, isn't it ? I mean, large monopolies interfere with the workings of the market - don't they ?

        At 160 acres per homestead that would create liveliehoods for 1500 hardworking families. Over here in Scotland the average sized croft is 12 acres - and the land is, I suspect, much less fertile. If the Cock brothers divided up their land into 12 acre "crofts", they would be creating livelihoods for 20,000 families.
  

    I won't be holding my breath though  



The Homestead Act seems to me to be a literal (maybe too literal as it panned out) transference of the means of production into the hands of the people. Flawed ? Probably yes. Exploited ? Probably yes. But definitely noble in its aspirations - and definitely closer to socialism in its intent than anything that a thousand Obamas have come even close to in the years since. Unfortunately.


...and not operating in the interests of usurious billionaires, for example ? Not operating as wage slaves ?
   This in itself is radical in todays world - call it what you will.



  

Yes - "Its not to the benevolence of the butcher, baker or brewer that we owe our next meal - but to the regard for his own self interest" - I take the point. This is why, in one of my earlier posts, I pointed to the Chinese economic model. The introduction of the market mechanism and the profit motive, into areas of the economy that are not deemed to be the bedrock/pillars of that nations economy, can be beneficial to the country as a whole.
    So while Chinas State Owned Enterprises still form the backbone of that economy, Apple/Foxconn are free to take work (from the US workforce) to the Special Economic Zones like Shenzhen.

  My point re. Elwars earlier post, was that he seemed to imply that good things wouldn't happen without people being offered a pecuniary benefit/ their regard to their own self interest etc.
    This is patently not true, as I tried to point out with the open source movement/bitcoin analogy. Again, it was an argument (the one I thought Elwar was making) that was used, for example, by the big record companies to justify charging rip off prices for albums/CD's - that the artists needed the monetary incentive to produce - filesharing would be the ruination of music/civilisation as we know it etc etc. - which was clearly bullshit and completely flew in the face of several hundred years of artists starving in garrets - and still producing.

    In fact, followed through, its the same argument that underpins the drive towards privatisation - that nationalised industries become "lame ducks" and have to be carried. Its the same reason that the Tory Government in the UK has been hellbent on introducing the internal market into the National Health Service - thereby allowing drug companies to fleece taxpayers once again. And under the trade and investment partnership (TTIP) services will be able to be contracted out to our US friends across the pond.

   God, how it makes me proud to have such libertarian free marketeer friends just across the water, ready to help us out and show us the error of our ways whenever called upon

  Brilliant. The US sets its sights on Europe.

      Christ fuckin help us  

According to the World Health Organization, hunger is the single gravest threat to the world's public health. The WHO also states that malnutrition is by far the biggest contributor to child mortality, present in half of all cases.
Undernutrition is a contributory factor in the death of 3.1 million children under five every year. Capitalism wastes 5/9ths of all food produced annually, and 3 million children die as a result every year.

Somehow I don't think charity is cutting it. I also don't think there's any ethical or intellectually honest way to defend this horrid system.

Capitalism without force? Capitalism without fraud? Bullshit indeed! Thank you for prefacing your statement with that honest qualifier!

Please tell me when and where in history EITHER of those two scenarios has existed anywhere other than your imagination. I'd sure love to hear about this mythical capitalist utopia... Maybe I can visit?

The same reason fiat central banking was the only surviving system until Bitcoin arrived - organized capitalists can and will do horrible violence and sabotage to suppress any competition for their profits.

Now, imagine for a moment just how many self-assured aristocrats throughout history have said the same of their own society's temporary political-economic design.

Looks like we need to get back to basics:


To that, I will add this:



"Garry Leech, an author who had previously penned a book on the FARC insurgency in Colombia (2011), has assembled a forceful denunciation of the status quo with Capitalism: A Structural Genocide.

In essence, he argues cogently in this work that the devastating structural violence experienced by societies subjected to the rule of capital since its historical emergence - and that particularly felt by the world's presently impoverished social majorities - is, instead of being an aberration or distortion of market imperatives, central and inherent to the division of society along class lines and the enthronement of private property. Even a cursory examination of the depth of human suffering perpetuated historically and contemporarily by the hegemony of capital should lead disinterested observers to agree with Leech that the catastrophic scale of violence for which this system is responsible can be considered nothing less than genocidal, however shocking such a conclusion might prove to be."

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/16887-the-structural-genocide-that-is-capitalism

*clap, clap, clap* Strong words from you young man.

Exactly! the question that we must all ask in the face of any nay sayers to free market capitalism!

If it is so bad, I wonder why it is the only surviving system. 

obviously you are right but some people have already decided that capitalism must be bad no matter what the facts are. 

+1

Just in support of your points

Milton friedman explains the need for Greed and private property, and the individuals selfinterest

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6hgEkdSlJw


Here he explains what free lunch means

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6hgEkdSlJw

Bullshit.  Capitalism is the only economic system that can succeed without fraud or initiating the use of force.  Voluntary trade between free individuals would lead to an incredibly prospeous society.  Thankfully, Bitcoin will move us closer to that ideal.

I cannot see how the homesteading implementation in the U.S. was anything but almost the opposite of 'socialist'.

I happen to live on property which was homesteaded around the turn of the century by my direct relatives though I had to buy back a fair chunk of the original.  Yes, there was emphasis on developing granted land, but the benefits accrued to the grantee almost totally.  Naturally there were expected to be taxes paid, but the main benefit to society was very much as Elwar mentioned in an earlier post; individual owners operating in their own best interest would produce products and jobs which would support society as a whole.

My recent outrageous hassles with the EPA (or DEQ in my state) were indistinguishable from racketeering and very far from 'environmental protection.'  This got me researching just what the fuck is going on.  An amazing document I ran across is Habitat-I - Land which is well worth a read (quick and easy:)

The interesting thing is that whatever one's level of agreement with the overlying rationals (and a green friend of mine said "Nobody believes that!') the prescriptions called out in the document are an exact match for how our policies and the bureaucracies built up to implement them operate today.

I also read 'Agenda 21'.  It was the most tedious goddamn thing I've ever tried to wade through.  It clearly came out of Vancouver above, but was a little more sedate it being recognized that certain cultures would have difficulties with the core (socialist) philosophies which drive the action plan.  Agenda 21 is certainly a real thing but it does not call for mass euthanasia as some of the more shrill in the alternate media would have one believe.  Here again, in analyzing policy and structures there is no doubt in my mind that:

  - Agenda 21 is being implemented very actively indeed
  - it is the embodiment of 'socialism' in our modern world.
  - it is successful precisely because it serves the 'corporate oligarch neo-fascist capitalists' extraordinarily well, and
  - it sucks.

The funniest thing about Agenda-21 is that almost every fucking directive had the words 'especially women and indigenous peoples' tacked on.  Whoever wrote 'The Life of Brian' with Stan adding 'and women' onto everything was almost certainly familiar with editorial style of those who generated the Agenda-21 action plan.  More seriously, one Rosa Koire characterized Agenda-21 as accurately as anyone I've seen; A worldwide action plan of 'inventory and control' of all resources.

Again, socialism/collectivism as implemented today is pretty much the exact the opposite of homesteading of land back in the Lincoln's time (and before IIRC.)  That makes some sense since population densities and economies have changed, but it simply does not make any valid point about the Socialism v. Libertarianism or any other -ism, and to the extent that it does it makes a rather devastating one against the suggestion.

Probably the simplest way of stating libertarianism is something like this. In pure libertarianism, everyone is free to think anything and do anything they want as long as:
1. they do not harm anyone else;
2. they do not damage the property of anyone else;
3. they DO fulfill all contractual obligations.

The U.S. government is set up this way at its core. The reason you don't see it exercised is that people don't know that the government is set up this way. If they know, they don't understand how to exercise their rights. The reason they don't know and understand is, government has eliminated this kind of training from the schools.

The training is coming back.

What if you don't pay your income taxes. If you have a contract with government to pay income taxes, then you should pay them. If the IRS comes after you, if they take you to court, require that the harmed or damaged person comes and takes the stand and shows the harm or damage, proves that the harm or damage was caused by you, and verifies/validates under oath the amount of payment you owe. If there is no damage, where is the contract, with YOU actually named in the contract, where they state ALL the points and particulars of how much you owe. You can do this.

The IRS is not a person who can be harmed or damaged. But if you file a 1040 return, you have told them that you owe. Otherwise, you probably don't.

If they persist in bothering you, file a court claim against them for whatever reasonable amount they are damaging you when they bother you.

If you want to understand the way things are set up, look for Bill Thornton on Youtube. Search his name along with the words "common law." There's a lot of listening time in some of his videos, but it is well worth it. After all, any kind of worthwhile training doesn't happen overnight.

At the same time, Youtube search on "Karl Lentz common law." Karl Lentz is a tough guy from New York who has turned this whole common law thing into a science. It'll take some time to learn, and you don't want to provoke government until you are ready, but you don't have to simply sit around and take it either.

We need to reactivate our knowledge and understanding and usage of common law before the whole world gets turned into civil (social) law.

If you act with Bitcoin, and government tries to stop you, or the banks cut you off, you have been damaged. They owe you!


Some websites:

Bill Thornton

http://1215.org/


Karl Lentz

http://www.myprivateaudio.com/Karl-Lentz.html = Angela Stark's Talkshoe.

http://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5duR4OvEHHxOSdEZhANETw = TrustInAllLaw snippets of Karl's audios.

http://www.broadmind.org/ = Karl's main page.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/ = Karl's United Kingdom page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/765736/videos?view=0&live_view=500&flow=grid&sort=da = Craig Lynch's snippets page.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HOkAHRzuiOA&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D = Ten great Youtube videos, might be the best introduction to Karl.

http://www.talkshoe.com/talkshoe/web/talkCast.jsp?masterId=127469&cmd=tc = Karl's Talkshoe site.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iua56K4Mysk = Karl Lentz - The Brian Bonar Incident - YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdHLHWS4gPE = Lentz-Sense - don't be a More~On - YouTube.


Other Info

http://voidjudgments.com/ = The Secret is most judgments are Void on their face and not merely voidable.

http://educationcenter2000.com/Trinsey-v-Paglario.htm = Trinsey v. Pagliaro - Attorneys cannot "speak" in common law trials if the one who is bringing the suit orders it. Holding from Trinsey v. Pagliaro: "An attorney for the plaintiff cannot admit evidence into the court. He is either an attorney or a witness" (essence, not wording of this holding).

Why are we still trying to debate Beliathon?

The guy stated several times he doesn't even
believe in the concept of property... 
(without which of course, trade itself is impossible),
so debating which is the best system for regulating
trade and industry isn't even possible.   

First of I think you are confusing capitalism with fascism or something. Because like I said it's a economic system, it's not a political system.
If you don't want to trade that's fine. You don't have to engage in trade you can go off living in the mountains or something.
Why should all of those things be provided for free though? It doesn't make sense.
Most people work and can buy all of those things. And those who can't will get assistance from either their families or charitable organizations.


Charitable organizations. Friends and family helping you out when you are broke. Happens all the time.


Come on, how often does that happen? I'm not a defender of the police state but in reality you would get away with 1 or 2 months free rent then you would be thrown out.
The police wouldn't show up, they never show up when they are needed so why would they in this scenario?

And what right do you have to live for free in a apartment? What if 2 guys showed up at your home demanding you let them live there for a eternity?

Nice point

Wrong. Capitalism has EVERYTHING to do with survival until food, shelter, healthcare, and education are provided free to all human beings as a birthright.

In what twisted fucking fantasy version capitalism does this actually happen? When someone falls you stomp their face into the mud, pick their pockets, and run off. Selfishness is the manifest reality of capitalism. Take the blinders off and see your society for what it is.

The part where if we serfs don't pay our rent to our landlords, they send the knights(police) to haul us away in chains(handcuffs) and throw us out into the streets to die of exposure. Here in NYC, the homeless often relieve themselves in phonebooths to avoid being caught exposing themselves publicly and thrown into dungeons.

Or the part where if a starving person takes food without permission, thereby cutting into some capitalist's profit-margins, that person has committed a crime, and will be thrown into a dungeon(prison) to rot. Capitalism is little more than thinly-veiled feudalism. A society governed by violence first and reason second (if at all).

Any lover of reason must be opposed to violence, because the world is a zero-sum game between reason and violence. Where one waxes, the other wanes. Capitalism cannot exist without systemic, mass-scale violence. Ergo, any person who wants to live in a world governed by reason must be opposed to capitalism.

Premise Four:
"Civilization is based on a clearly defined and widely accepted yet often unarticulated hierarchy. Violence done by those higher on the hierarchy to those lower is nearly always invisible, that is, unnoticed. When it is noticed, it is fully rationalized. Violence done by those lower on the hierarchy to those higher is unthinkable, and when it does occur is regarded with shock, horror, and the fetishization of the victims."

Premise Five:
"The property of those higher on the hierarchy is more valuable than the lives of those below. It is acceptable for those above to increase the amount of property they control—in everyday language, to make money—by destroying or taking the lives of those below. This is called production. If those below damage the property of those above, those above may kill or otherwise destroy the lives of those below. This is called justice."
-Derrick Jensen

Fuedalism. With heavy makeup, dressed in its Sunday best, delivered with a warm smile and a charismatic speech. That's all capitalism is.

Once you accept this reality, there is no way for any person with an ounce of compassion in their heart to be be anything but disgusted by it.

There are only two possible ideologies: libertarianism and stupidity.

Capitalism is a economic system. It doesn't have to be any "survival competition". Like you have pointed out several times, humans are not evil.
If someone falls you would natural help that person up.
It's not incompatible with human nature. Would it be against human nature to be involved in voluntary trade?

Cool story bro. Capitalism & intra-societal survival competition are still fundamentally incompatible with human nature. Real human nature, not the social-darwinist nonsense you were brainwashed with in your factory-school.

I'm sure Whitney Houston thoght that first hit of crack was the best thing that ever happened to her, but where is she now?  Sure, government intervention in the market feels great in the beginning, but not so much when society becomes addicted to it.

i wouldn't consider it that socialistic to give land grants.  The problem is not the government giving away it's assets but rather forcing others to do so.