Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 17. (Read 33774 times)

In what way is capitalism morally wrong?

Correct. Except when practicing capitalism. And the fact that you know it may be shocking to realize speaks volumes about your cognitive dissonance.

Close. In her 2005 book The Sociopath Next Door, psychologist Martha Stout warned that about four percent of the U.S. population (12 million Americans) are sociopaths.

And capitalism very naturally ensures that these sociopaths rise to the top of the hierarchy.

You live in a gated community.

But good luck to you also - you have conducted yourself well, I feel, in this exchange of ideas (and I'm not being sarcastic) (you also have my sympathies in having worked for a sociopath - I'm going through it as we speak)

I'm outta here.

Post 142 represents a mischaracterization of anarch-caps and doesn't clarify your politics at all.

Certainly, if you feel that I am badgering you for asking for more information for beliefs you seem to be advocating than I will happily do so. I am confused that you simultaneously want to advocate a position but at the same time don't want to clarify it?

Final comment before I leave this thread:

I have tried to create an open and honest dialogue that includes details and solutions to problems in society. It appears that some would prefer to spend time complaining and mischaracterizing the position of capitalists rather than defining the details of their political philosophy and taking any actions besides communicating frustration over the status quo.

I made the decision to give up a lucrative career because I worked for a sociopath and now live in a largely anarcho-cap community where we collectively built our electrical infrastructure, constructed and maintain the roads, support our own DRO, own and control our own water supply , grow our own food, ect...

I would encourage those who are against capitalism to actively seek and join a communist collective or create one. It does involve hard work, but you will feel better about yourself and if you have a conscious, feel less hypocritical. Good luck.

p.s.... no , I don't live in a rich or gated community either. The community I live in represents people of many social and demographic statuses with over half living in what you would consider far below the poverty line. I am by no means wealthy either.

I know this may be shocking to realize but capitalists are human too with ethics and morality.
Only 1-2 % of humanity falls in the category of sociopathy or psychopathy.
The rest of us believe there are many things more important than money.

With respect I think that my position, when taken alongside that of other contributors to this thread, is perfectly unambiguous. Rather, I would say that it is your position that needs clarification. I would suggest that you read (or re-read) post 142 of this very thread - and then get back here with some coherent counter arguments. Cos to me, there is no such a thing as an anarchist capitalist.




Well, I'll give you credit - at least you haven't slated me (thus far) for being a "commi" "pinko" etc, as I have been in other such threads. McCarthyism is alive and well in the US it seems. Again, Beliathons post above (quoting Professor Wolff) was instructive here as to the boundaries to the discourse that have been circumscribed by TPTB in post war US.

  But, lets just say that, yes, I do have something against labels - and can that be an end to it please ?

Haha. Yeah, I had a feeling the capitalists would cry, "hey, that's not fair! That was during a riot! It's not like that happens every day!"

Rather expensive propositions for a shoe store in Koreatown. What exactly do you imagine the profit margins are like an enterprise like that?

Guns are affordable, unlike lockdown rooms and polycabronate lexan. Remember this was 1992.

Unfair characterization. Most capitalists I have spoken with, myself included, do not believe it is morally justified to shoot a looter in the back for merely stealing some property. There are plenty of solutions of securing private property without violence. The store could use polycarbonate lexan instead of glass, or have a lockdown room like jewelry stores have to prevent the crime of theft. Just 2 examples of non-violently securing property amongst many.

Capitalism's logical conclusion is always the same.

Some top comments from youtube:

"Perfect example of second amendment in action. Where were the cops when the honest taxpaying Korean-Americans need them?
Thank god, those Korean men probably have had military training, and their fathers probably were Korean War GIs. It's good that they teach those looting bastards a lesson."

"The Koreans were the true Americans that day. Instead of looting like all the other filth, they stood by their establishment and upheld the second amendment to protect their business from the trash.
I cant believe people actually want to take that right away....the right to be able to defend yourself."

Shooting to kill unarmed people for stealing shoes. Judge, jury, and executioner. True Americans indeed.

Of course I'm not calling for a Socialist Revolution; have I suggested I am a socialist?. I am merely suggesting that one be consistent with their philosophies and politics with as much effort as they can achieve.


Some governments allow collectives to exist tax free without interference if they are anti-capitalist. The state doesn't see them as a threat.

It is hard for me to recommend a collective for you to join if you persist to be so ambiguous with your politics. I don't understand why you avoid clarifying your position. If you have something against labels, fine , just answer the questions so I can help you follow your political dreams.



Why don't you believe that widespread change can happen by people leading by example? Why can't an idea grow from a "seed"? Don't you think its foolish to wait for a whole nation to instantly become "??" without people who advance such new ideas first actively living such a life in practice and not just through words alone?

There is nothing "practical" about "dreaming" without actually making goals and taking active steps to follow your dreams.

You are calling for a socialist revolution ?

The Isle of Eigg example that I cited is relevant because, amongst other reasons, Scotland is a country where one half of the land is owned by fewer than 500 individuals.

Eigg is the exception to the rule.

If you believe that that wealth/land would be surrendered voluntarily, then you are naive in the extreme. And where/how, exactly, are these communes that you espouse supposed to subsist without having a share in that which, I believe, is rightfully theirs ? My concern is not with isolated and tolerated communes - though I wish them good luck - it is with the whole populace of the nation - and they deserve better.

I am not an "objectivist" and Ayn Rand doesn't have a monopoly on the word "objective". I am am anarcho-capitalist. Ayn Rand's philosophy would be some variation of minarchism if you read her work.


I am not a libertarian and don't live in the US. I am not suggesting that most people hold anarchist views either; the opposite is true. I gave a list of principles most would agree with; which ones do you disagree with?


I have repeatedly indicated that I am quite happy with communities of anarcho-syndacalism, anarcho-communism, and anarcho-socialism existing as long as they don't impose their will upon me and my community and they don't force their existing members to stay who prefer to leave.

Those groups who don't agree with my or others philosophies should be perfectly free to form their own communities. Anarcho-capitalists are typically fine living beside and even trading with such communities as long as they don't impose their violent will upon them.


I am familiar with these methods and am also familiar with human nature and how there will always be cases where "consensus" isn't reached. As long as your community allows the minority to freely leave I am perfectly happy with such arrangement.

Additionally,  I actively encourage you to actually live in or create communities that support your politics. I essentially do(I don't have the freedom that certain states allow anarcho-communist communities), and I find it strange that those advocating some form or anarcho-communism /socialism are so resistant to actually pursuing their dream. It is almost as if they are waiting for some critical mass where everyone agrees with them first before leading by example.

One doesn't need to be an Ayn Rand fan to understand the fallacy of moral relativism.

You said what's ethical is purely subjective.  I disagree.

Ayn Rand and their ilk have no monopoly neither on morality nor on philosophy ("objectivism"). There exist thousands of other views, interpretations and philosophies.


"most"? you mean, like consensus? the very thing you find coercive? news flash, US libertarians are quite a minority with their views.


indeed  


There exist forms of consensus where a solution will be sought until 100% agree. Furthermore, define "majority" and "minority". If communities are not too large, you can always leave and find one that fits your nature better. There's certain rules in every family. Historically, people lived together in extended families, in tribes. What was good for you was good for your family, the tribe. Modern life where people barely know each other is the result of centuries of divide-and-conquer by the ruling classes. "Keep 'em separated." That way people are much easier to control. If that were not the case, people wouldn't be so suspicious of each other, and people like you wouldn't find the idea of more community "coercive".

"Before capitalism, there were other ways. Feudalism was what existed in Europe for a thousand years before we had modern capitalism. And before that, slavery - yet another system - another way of organizing who does the work and who gets the profits and so on. And the interesting thing is that every other system that we have a record of in the human race, was born, evolved over time, and eventually passed away. What always has intrigued me, is the need for those people living in capitalism today, to think it's going to be the great exception. It was born, basically in England 300 years ago, it has evolved over the last three centuries. But when you say, "yes, but that means it will also pass away and give rise to another system", people get all kinds of strange worries because they don't want to think about that.

And so they begin to imagine that this system will be forever, in a way no other system in history has proved itself to be."
-Dr. Wolff

"And our resistance to any challenge to capitalism is ferocious in the United States. I mean the essence of the Cold War in our lifetimes is not the Soviets were intrinsically evil, it was that the Soviets practice an economic system called Communism, and that represents an existential threat to the United States, to our way of life, and to everything that we hold dear and believe to be true. And so it was really a battle over an economic system."
-Thom Hartmann

"Absolutely, I think the important things to remember are these. Before World War II, that is before the cold war that started after '45 got going, Americans were able to discuss capitalism as a system, socialism and communism as some of the various alternatives and so on. It didn't seem to threaten our society at least for large numbers of our people, to have a conversation, to assess the strengths and weaknesses of different systems. To be kind of rational adults talking about this question. And even after 1945 in places like France or Germany or Italy or many other countries that we are close to, socialist parties thrived. The French government today is a socialist government. Socialists are part of governments in many European countries, didn't seem to fall apart in Europe. It was something rational people could talk about.

But here in the United States, it became a taboo. Since 1945, what you did is you shut down the debate. You made it no longer a question of discussing systems, trying to see if we could do better than capitalism in part - all of that became impossible. To question capitalism, let alone to explore the alternatives took on the aura of an act of disloyalty. It was wonderful for the capitalists, because it basically proscribed any kind of debate or discussion or criticism as beyond the pale. We are only NOW, fifty years into the taboo, finally coming out of the kind of funk that we were in as a nation. Now that we see how poorly the capitalist system serves the majority of people in the US, slowly we are emerging back to the place we should never have left - which is an open honest debate and discussion about the alternatives systems  past, present, and future - that will shape how we live as a people."
-Dr. Wolff

------------------------

This is precisely what I mean when I use the term "economic fundamentalism". You can see the logical leaps a person must make to believe capitalism is the be-all end-all of economics. This is what makes it a close cousin to religious fundamentalism.

Conversations with Great Minds part 1 - Dr. Richard Wolff with Thom Hartmann

Conversations with Great Minds part 2

The examples you cite involve either private ownership of property or a small group of individuals with collective ownership of the means of production.

Why are you so ambiguous in your reply? Just tell me the specifics of your politics so I can learn. I answered the questions below myself so you can understand my position.

• Do humans or individuals own themselves?

Yes

• Can individuals own private personal property?

Yes

• Are you suggesting that individuals cannot own private property that can be used to create something like an oven that can produce baked goods?

No, individuals can own tools and means of production

• If the answer above is neither yes or no than how do you determine what scale or context property that produces goods or services can no longer be owned by an individual?

• Can an individual temporarily own land?

Yes, as long as it is not hoarded and neglected. Homesteading would be apply and certain rules of redistribution after the owners death would apply.

• Should an ideal community use currency as a means of exchanging value?

Yes

• What is the political framework of decision making or how is consensus is achieved?

Laws and Regulations can be made within community only with 100% agreement.

• When an individual within the group disagrees and decides to break these regulations what are the initial consequences and than the ultimate consequences when they stubbornly   refuse to be coerced by the majority?

Does not directly apply as regulations cannot exist without inclusive agreement of everyone. If one agrees than hypocritically breaks regulations than they could be given a choice to either stay within the community and make amends or freely leave such community.

• How does one join or leave your proposed community?

Before joining an anarcho-cap community certain assurances should be made so one can easily leave without much stress at any moment if one chooses to exercise such right. This is to prevent individuals from being coerced by the group because they have invested everything they had into the community and thus cannot afford to leave.



I don't understand why you are so shy about being open and honest with the details of what you are proposing. A link detailing the framework of your proposal (not some verbose speech on the evils of capitalism without explaining the details of what one wishes to supplant capitalism) or answering the questions above would certainly clarify matters.[/list]

All societies, throughout history, have produced. This doesn't in itself mean that they have embraced capitalism - far from it. The mode of production alters over time with advancements in knowledge and technology. They produce to survive - it is necessary.

The question, however, is who owns the means of production ?   This is crucial, as our relationship to the means of production defines our relationship to our own selves, to others, to the land/environment. The ownership of the means of production has a profound effect upon the very culture that we live and breathe - as well as, of course, our day to day economic reality.

It is for this reason that I've cited the references that I have - each example (and there are, I'm sure, many many more) has a different approach to the ownership of the means of production than that of the prevailing capitalist paradigm of today [a paradigm that has led to a concentration of the worlds wealth into the hands of an obscenely small number of private individuals].




What exactly are my politics ?

This land is your land, this land is my land.

 

This is a fantastic test and idea but probably wouldn't allowed to be tested as any community that competes with a state would be quickly be invaded or a coup created.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

States will sometimes allow communist communes to exist as they technically don't compete with their capitalist infrastructure and are considered a joke.

This is the whole point of Bitcoin and reliance on strong cryptography and psuedo-anomynous nature. Satoshi understood states always moved in and shutdown competing systems of capitalism(liberty dollar, liberty reserve, egold, DGC, ect...) as they don't allow competition once something grows to a certain size where it can be a threat. The anarcho-cap society necessarily needs to interact and trade as that is the economic/political basis and thus runs a risk unless it was hidden(how?) or had nuclear arms as a deterrent.

I would love such a test and many more to be done however. It is possible that a seastead community that attracted enough tourism worldwide wouldn't be directly invaded as it could fit in a right balance of neutrality between opposing and aggressive psychopathic states, but would be tricky.

What we need is a few really good seasteads so we can test the ideas being bandied about here. How about we make a few rules from the start:

1) We have three different seasteads far enough apart that the members of each can not easily interfere with one another. One can have an (anarcho)-capitalist system, another a socialist system, and a third "control" that has no previously established government or economic system and the members can simply do what works best for them.

2) Each of us chooses the seastead we want to join, completely voluntarily with no outside persuasion or undue interference, whether violent or otherwise.

3) If one seastead runs into any kind of problem, it will be understood that the other two will not help under any circumstances.

And we all see which seastead lasts the longest. Let the games begin!

(P.S. A pretty good website promoting the idea of seasteads: http://www.seasteading.org/)

http://www.isleofeigg.org/shopping.html
http://www.agg-net.com/news/breaking-new-ground-at-tower-colliery
http://www.gaianeconomics.org/tower.htm

Wait.... so your 2 previous examples involve communities who embrace capitalism, personal property , and currency?
Perhaps we are talking past each other, what exactly is your politics... specifically?