Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 18. (Read 33777 times)

I will research your posts to find those 2 specific examples again.

I just read that article and find your example puzzling to say the least, as it is an example that supports my position.
Are you trying to suggest that we should live as luddites, as hunter and gatherers, reduce earths population dramatically, and have a much lower quality of life?

In what way do you qualify "American Indian" society(please don't make the same mistake as the author by assuming all the tribes are similar and clarify a specific example) as being a model society?

Not when you're searching desperately for myths and untruths to support your economic fundamentalist thinking.

Well, for a start, maybe read this

And I suppose, seeing as how you have a philosophical bent, maybe Rousseau's "Noble Savage" might be instructive. I dunno. I'd like to help more - but there's none so blind as those that don't want to see.

BTW - I did reference 2 instances earlier in this thread of living, breathing examples of non coercive community owned and run enterprises that were/are successful and which you (sort of) trashed as you weren't sure how decisions were reached within those communities/enterprises.
  Google is your friend.

I am still waiting for examples of societies without the use of currency or property that have been even moderately successful.

You realize that you can perform this test without capitalist interference and taxes imposed upon you from the outside state, right? In fact this has been tested multiple times before and being tested now. Why don't you join these communes or create your own?

I am open to your ideas , but need evidence. Repeating appeals to emotions or short comings within corrupt fascistic capitalist states doesn't address anarcho-capitalism or validate your proposed politics either.

You have yet to provide evidence that your political framework is even better than a corrupt form of capitalism.

...aint that the truth  


Yes - for the 1% it definitely does  

Not so sure about the 25% of the Spanish population who are unemployed though. Or those on zero hour contracts. Or those trapped in negative equity etc etc etc

same thing happened to me OP

In fact capitalism depends upon the illogical madness of economics (a pseudo-science) and a total lack of applied ethics to be successful in any measurable way. 

The great thing about capitalism is that it doesn't solely depend upon logic or ethics as it works better than communism/socialism in practice.

There is that which works in practice - and that which doesn't.

If it works for us, we find virtue in it.

All the rest is hot air, religious fundamentalism, didacticism or dictatorship I'm afraid.

Certainly,  I can argue ethics from first principles with axioms most can agree upon. These ethics would objectively be true, logically consistent, and empirically verifiable.

If you are logically inconsistent or a nihilist(must I repeat myself) or making the assumption that I posit a Universal system of ethics that applies to a possible multiverse or realities that exist beyond our universe than I would agree with you. The scope of objective ethics I posit applies when one accepts certain axioms that most would agree with: We exist, there exists objective conceptual truths, the greatest suffering for all is a "bad" thing, truth is preferable to dishonesty, ect....

Example:

Lets assume Rape is morally virtuous and I choose to rape you. Under such moral framework only one of us could be virtuous as one person would be the victim. It is logically impossible for us to both be raping each other simultaneously because the moment that happens rape ceases to be the case, and we instantly become consensual adults participating in some rough sex. Thus rape is always, objectively less virtuous for society than not raping simply because we can both be virtuous if we posit rape if ethically immoral and not raping is ethically be good. This can also be tested empirically if you analyze the health of a societies with high incidences of rape with higher correlations of std's and lower standards of living.

You may attempt to refute my argument with some edge case such as:
There are only 2 people left in the world (fertile male and female) and one individual refuses to have sex with the other, thus raping the non-consenting party would objectively be better for humankind.

The problem with these edge cases is they hardly ever exist in reality if ever but lets just assume that it happens. Would this than be a case which breaks the ethical principle that rape is universally immoral? No. Reason: This is a consequentialist fallacy as it makes the assumption that the preceding action automatically becomes morally ethical if the consequence is a good one. The act of rape was still unethical regardless of the consequences as it victimized another and thus the 2 person society was less virtuous than a society with 2 consenting sexual partners regardless of the consequences.

We can speculate all day about edge case examples where immorality is justified and good for society. I do acknowledge it may be justified to occasionally break an ethical principle for the good of society: Ticking time bomb hypothetical: Torturing a terrorist who has information that could save lives. The problem with this is these hypothetical's almost never exist in reality and even if they rarely do exist it doesn't justify one to create a whole framework which is built upon routinely breaking that ethical principle. So in a ticking time bomb scenario you better be damn sure the terrorist knows the location of the bomb and if you are wrong and commit torture you should face severe repercussions for your actions. American presidents who justify torture through laws and formalize it are just plain evil and objectively harm society.

Can we ? Not so sure about that one.

What we deem to be axioms/self evident moral truths today might well be different tommorrow - or in another place.

If moral precepts were as simple as logical propositions to ascertain the truth or falsehood of, then the human race wouldn't be the human race at all would it ? More like some kind of automaton.

You might say morality is relative, but I'd prefer to say its abitrarily arrived at given the practical concerns of the day.

You certainly will never be able to arrive at "testable and objective ethical principles that are consistent and empirical" - you are talking about something else - science maybe - but not ethics.

Ethics is about deciding where we locate value - and that alters over time and place. It can mostly be located, I believe, in that which confers an evolutionary benefit - and that alters over time and place also.

Your argument is from the perspective of a moral relativist. One can easily develop testable and objective ethical principles that are consistent, empirical, and objective with some of the most basic foundational axioms that most would agree with.

I.E.... Logical consistency is a "good" thing. The greatest needless suffering for the most is a "bad" thing, and the reducing suffering for the most is a "good" thing.


No, I own "myself" objectively because I am the ultimate decider as a conscious animal(Or I am condemned to make a choice; ironically). Even if I sold myself into slavery as property the slave master wouldn't technically own "me". The only way I could sell myself to another is through my death (or some possible futuristic mind control device) and in these examples I would cease to exist as myself. This is objectively true and doesn't depend upon our ability to defend ourselves.


The NAP is merely a moral principle that applies to most cases and I would expect individuals to break the NAP in certain cases. This doesn't mean that they didn't commit an ethical blunder but that the unusual circumstance necessitated such action in a certain context. Thus there are edge cases that should be viewed in context.

You are equivocating "cooperation" with political consensus decision making where the majority uses violence and coercion against the minority. Cooperation shouldn't be used to describe frameworks which necessitates the use of kidnapping , torture and death as an enforcement method. Doing so, at minimum, is extremely misleading.  If you disagree with the above than please specify exactly how such cooperation is found within a society of differing opinions.(explain the consequences of minorities who choose not follow the majorities laws.)

Perhaps the position you intend to claim is that coercion done through consensus is justified and the best option amongst imperfect frameworks. This is an acceptable argument to make, but than I want to see examples and data to support these claims. So far the data suggests that removing property rights and currency is a huge mistake and leads to needless suffering.
This doesn't mean that their isn't some new framework without property rights and currency that could work or be superior but that one should be skeptical of such claims until they can be proven otherwise.

It happens imo. Happened to me as well. Money changes everything

You're right, the "might is right" is unfortunate, but that's not what I wanted to say. "Functioning on this higher level is the hallmark of an evolved civilization", that's also correct. The only thing you have to accept is that based on these premises, some may come to quite different conclusions than you of how this "evolved civilization" should be structured. Unhindered individualism (but with "civilized" property rights) may lead to "might is right" too, mind you. In fact, that's essentially history repeated. What else were kings and queens and the whole aristocracy other than powerful individuals amassing large land property over generations (interbreeding with each other as to not dilute their wealth, that's why there's the term "blue blood"), leading to massive inequality and eventually revolutions.


What's "wise" and "ethical" is a purely subjective question. Again, at the bottom line, we own ourselves merely as much as we can defend ourselves. And, economically speaking, in most scenarios it's just too much risk/effort to attack someone else.


It's not a straw man, I don't exclude NAP-forms of societal organization (just by not having mentioned it). But people like you seem to be quick to equate cooperation with coercion. That is the real straw man. In my view, the world is not that simplistic and black and white as most market-libertarians seem to believe. Like NAP magically solves all conflicts and problems. It does not. Essentially, this idea just does not scale. History is full of edge cases. Property, especially land, is the number one source of conflict and formed the course of wars in history, eventually leading to today's geo-political structure. It is in the first place what formed alliances out of tribes, and then kingdoms and eventually nation states, i.e. the very thing that libertarians ramble against.

I bet you aren't the only one. In my case, it was because of studying about gold and fiat currencies.

Hong Kong and Singapure have the highest GDP in the world and are 2 shitholes of a country. GDP means nothing.

Ahhh, I see.  Places that have oppressive, corrupt communist and socialist governments instead of free markets.  I'm starting to see a pattern.  More government = more misery.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=gPOfurmrjxo#t=199

ancient beliefs are not so foolish.  For example, worshipping the sun...

The sun is worthy of being worshipped.  With the power far greater
than all of nuclear bombs, it sustains all life on Earth.

This falsely assumes humans aren't part of nature. At minimum humans partially own of themselves, and as an "abstract" concept it is a wise ethical principle to respect self-ownership.



Straw man. One stands together in peace and solidarity while following the NAP. Suggesting that one must use coercion to cooperate isn't merely dishonest, but contradictory. Cooperation can only occur in a group if all of the members "cooperate", and anything short of that involves violence and coercion of the majority against the minority.(The opposite of standing together)


Notice the repeated appeals to emotion fallacies being represented here instead of confronting the historical reality that the proposed socialist and communist solutions create greater human suffering regardless of the proponents intentions.

 Most anarcho-communist societies I have researched quickly re-integrate some form of property ownership and currency after re-learning what humans have tested many times before. Even free from the state demanding taxes upon them they still live at a lower standard of living than the rest of the world which embraces capitalism.

Are there any examples of societies who remove property rights and/or currency which don't result in disaster?