Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 27. (Read 33774 times)

It is impossible for words to have a "clearly defined meaning".  All words have fuzzy meanings. That is how the human language works.   Any verbal argument, even if it is based on reason and logic, cannot arrive at absolutist conclusions. All conclusions are only true to a degree.  And it's not a question of finding a more precise language, or better definitions, because human thought is imprecise.  Neural networks deal in degrees and probabilities, not in mechanistic rules.  

The biggest failing of libertarinism is that it treats concepts as binary which are continua in the real word. Take the concept of "force" for instance. For a libertarian, either something is forceful or it isn't.  But in reality there is a spectrum that goes something like this:  gentle persuasion ... manipulation ... thinly veiled threats ... pointing a gun to someone's head.  

Libertarians say that you simply have to define force more precisely in edge cases but I say this is impossible.

For a lot of practical problems, intuitive, fuzzy morality trumps mechanistic ideology by a long way.

Principles are more important..ofcourse money changes your mindset and thinking but stick to your principles.

socialist china is going to fall apart just like the previous dynasties.

Just changed the front page with some nice pictures and color...

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8174632

I'm not from the US but I always imagined there was a option to go to a cheaper doctor... At least that's what Simpson's have teached us.




Anyone can use it but I don´t see how any government would be able to collect taxes.
That means bitcoin is not very compatible with any form of socialism.
That's why I wanted Beliathon to explain this to me but he just left...

Bitcoin cannot be divorced from politics

Bitcoin development is surprisingly political

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

Bitcoin isn't attached to any political party, anyone can use it.

Problem is the basic healthcare in US is overpriced. Few months ago, I traveled to a third world country, had an appendix ruptured, got infected, stayed in the hospital for a month, guess how much I paid, $100 more or less. Imagine I had it ruptured here in US with no insurance, I would have to work for 10 years to pay off the medical debt.

I can understand that if it's serious like brain surgery or bleeding edge treatment for cancer, I'm willing to pay shit load for the best, but basic stuffs should be affordable without insurance.

Because there has never been free market competition for healthcare.
It was an illusion fostered by insurance and pharmaceutical companies, among others.
There are regional monopolies, pricing cartels and ridiculously well-funded lobbies.
Why else would every American administration since Nixon had tried (and failed) to revamp healthcare laws?

How else can anyone explain the skyrocketing healthcare cost over the last 40 years, when even poor Asian countries can offer outpatient treatment to all their citizens for less than 50 American cents each?



By 2010, Americans were paying an average of $8,402 annually for healthcare expenses, the highest in the world - and yet, there were already over 50 million (and growing) uninsured Americans.
How did France and Canada, arguably the two countries with the best healthcare system in the world, managed to offer universal healthcare to their citizens at a significantly lower per capita cost?

Bloomberg did a head count a few years ago, and there were over 6,000 healthcare lobbyists handling the 535 Congressmen and House Reps in Washington alone.
There are more healthcare lobbyists in D.C than congressional staffers!
Most of the opposition for Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act was financed by organizations funded by some of the largest insurance, pharmaceutical and healthcare groups, sometimes through a labyrinth network of shelf companies.
Obamacare is far from perfect, and I expect it to be repeatedly amended over the coming years. But it was a crucial and absolutely necessary legislation to loosen the grip of regional elites.

why the free market fails to bring down health care costs?

not sure what socialism / libertarianism really mean, but I like cheap stuffs, I like craiglist, ebay, yard sale, discount, whatnot. I hate healthcare in the states as it's not affordable, I hate all kinds of insurances. Ideally normal people should be able to walk to in a hospital for an ear check, dick scan, without health insurance, paying like $20, max, (that's what they do in most countries btw). If my car / computer break, i will just throw them away and get new ones, but life I cannot. I'm all for libertarianess, but keeping things affordable is a must.

for the question regarding how a completely free society be contained from violence...

My take is..Does violence have any importance in a society when humans are immortal and could regenerate and repair any harm done to their physical body.

The argument that government has to protect us from those who are able and will cause becomes irrelevent in the same way that if a cure for cancer is found out the whole anti nuclear energy movement collapses.

So a completely free society will be one in which there is no government and humans are immortal.

No, capitalists would trade with each other for mutual benefit. Do statists confuse their own murderous fantasies with capitalists?


Thank you for leaving the thread to "grown ups", who are capable of articulating their position without contradictions and insults.

I think the intellectual reader will indeed draw their own conclusions about this. 

I read Rand 20 years ago and its good
stuff.  While I generally agree with
the politics, her views are spiritually
primitive... truncated by
material reductionism.
 
That said, I highly respect Ayn Rand's
tremendous efforts in detailing a
complete formal philosophy.
 
Meanwhile, you won't even clarify
your own position -- first claiming
to be an anarchist, and then
saying an absense of government
would be "a nightmare world of
the darkest order".

Beliation, in my opinion,
you are living in a bubble
of idealism, (and I don't
mean that as an attack.)

Many of your ideals, for
example, "everyone should have
have basic needs met as a birthright",
are at odds with other sensible
principles , such as "people should
be free from opression".

The conflict comes when one tries
to implement the ideas:  Who
should pay for these birthrights?
And who should enforce this?

There aren't easy answers to these
questions if you want to take an
alternative route to the "capitalistic"
solutions of the free market and self
responsibility.

It is easy to rage against what
you perceive to be injustice
("capitalism") but so far, you
have not succeeded in convincing
anyone here of viable alternatives.
 
I still respect you as a person,
but I don't respect your worldview
because it is fraught with bizarre
conclusions and self-contradictions.

I think I'm done here gentlemen. I'm fairly confident that any intelligent reader can draw their own conclusions by now, based on the arguments presented by both sides.

Good day, enjoy your thread. You are now liberated from the tyranny of evidence-based reasoned debate. Have fun circlejerking each other to Ayn Rand porn.

How about it? Can you give us an answer?
Beliathon the true anarchist - who wants government and then calls me a moron for not being a real anarchist.
How the hell can you be a anarchist if you want government or a state? No matter how limited it is.


There might be a few that will turn to violence in a free society but I think we could handle those. After all these are people we are talking about.
Capitalists are people too don't forget that. They are not out to oppress you.

It's a lot easier doing free trade under the non-aggression principle, then kidnap and murder people.



I don't read Ayn Rand. Unlike you I form my own opinions.

The dictionary definition (and common understanding) of Anarchy is "absence of government".
Either you want some form of government, or you don't.  So which is it?  Are you capable
of giving us a binary answer?

Shouldn't food be considered more essential than the services you listed?  I can only imagine how expensive food would become and how many people would start starving if the government here in the USA were to assume responsibility for ensuring that everyone was fed.  If free markets can provide us with a low-cost, reliable food supply, then they can certainly provide us with the rest of life's essential needs.

Nope, but nice work putting words in my mouth. Although I will take "statism" over "unfettered lawless capitalism" any day of the week. Mostly because I like my internal organs right where they are, thank you very much.

I only wish I could say the same about you... but there is nothing funny about willful ignorance resulting from formative year nation-state indoctrination via though-terminating cliches.

Deliberately creating intellectual cripples, whether in churches or factory-schools, is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.

Because the profit motive compels them to do everything in their power in a capitalist "society" without governmental protection, and the sick mother culture subverts their natural inclination toward compassion.

Maybe it would help if you read authors other than that hypocrite Ayn Rand.

Only because most people know nothing of anarchism other than the propaganda lies fed to them by their government.

"The measure of the state’s success is that the word anarchy frightens people, while the word state does not. We are like those African slaves who believe that their master is their benefactor, or those Russians who still believe that Stalin was their guardian."
-Joseph Sobran

Minarchists... That's a new word for me... and a good one!  I agree.