bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 3.

spiceminer15

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

Quote from: Beliathon on October 16, 2014, 11:10:12 AM

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on October 16, 2014, 09:54:11 AM

The state is not a creation of the corporations. Corporations are a creation of the state. Corporations derive their power from the state.

Corporations derive their power from money.
The state derives it's power from money, indoctrination of masses, and monopoly on legitimized violence. If you remove the state from the equation but leave capitalism in place, all of a sudden there is no state monopoly on violence. That means violence will be sold to the highest bidder: the corporations.

Corporations, endowed with this new power - the ability to wield violence as sovereign nations once did - will quickly work to monopolize this violence and prevent citizens from wielding it. The result would be fascism and probably mass slavery and/or genocide.

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on October 16, 2014, 09:54:11 AM

The solution is to take away the state's authority to initiate the use of force and make all interaction and exchange voluntary.

The only way to truly make all interaction and exchange voluntary is to live in a world totally without violence. A world governed by reason and reason alone. This is not at all compatible with capitalism, which necessitates systematic violence as a prerequisite for its existence.

The path to a world governed by reason is providing the essentials for survival to all human beings as a birthright, and then allowing us to compete for everything else (luxuries and such). That means decent food, shelter, healthcare, and education must be provided to all human beings FREE, not one person excluded.

totally clueless.

you have a choice whether you want to buy a companies product or not. with government you have no choice.

who is going to provide the essentials for survival of all humans? government? who are they going to steal it from to give it to someone else? are they going to use violence to steal this wealth? are men with guns going to kill people who resist?

what you're saying is people should have to give something they earned to someone else, or else your thugs with guns are going to come kill them?

spiceminer15

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 250

libertarianism is where its at.

anyone who believes they should be able to steal from other people through government is a scumbag

practicaldreamer

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: tvbcof on October 17, 2014, 12:54:54 PM

I was able to build a cable car mostly because it was such an outrageous off-the-wall idea that nobody thought to make regulations about it. Back in the 40's when the country bridge collapsed a private citizen who needed to use it (for his small sawmill) just re-built the fucking thing and had it done in less than a week. Back around the turn of the century a small group of locals decided they would like a road over down a shear 200 foot cliff. They bought some dynamite, lowered themselves down on ropes, and built the damn thing.

Calums Road

ps. I reckon a big part of your beef is with bureaucracy tvb.

tvbcof

legendary

Activity: 4760

Merit: 1283

Quote from: Beliathon on October 17, 2014, 08:49:40 AM

...
To all my younger readers: This is why your parents' and grandparents' generations seem so much more obedient, brainwashed, and stupid than your own. They grew up in the age of centrally-controlled media (radio & TV). You didn't. It's all unraveling now, and there's no saving it. The truth cannot be stopped.
...

What-huh? The only group I see actually doing real things are the older generations. The concept of actually doing something for oneself is so alien that there it is not even considered in the myriad of advice and regulations that our ballooning bureaucracy generates. Want to dig a hole for some reason? The DEQ's advice is to "Hire an experienced contractor."

The only people I see with their own equipment, machine shops, radio gear, etc are the older generation. I was able to build a cable car mostly because it was such an outrageous off-the-wall idea that nobody thought to make regulations about it. Back in the 40's when the country bridge collapsed a private citizen who needed to use it (for his small sawmill) just re-built the fucking thing and had it done in less than a week. Back around the turn of the century a small group of locals decided they would like a road over down a shear 200 foot cliff. They bought some dynamite, lowered themselves down on ropes, and built the damn thing. When they got it working the country paid them some money though they did loan them some drills to do the work. These things would be simply inconceivable today both for red-tape reasons and because the American people have become, as a group, lame and weak.

One of the government's chief goals is to get people on the dole and dependent on the corp/gov state and they are reasonably good at it. This is the basic prerequisite for Socialism and central planning, and it serves the corporate and the government very well. Both are active in the project. I agree with you that the problem is partially attributable to "centrally-controlled media (radio & TV)", but I see it as being almost totally directed toward furthering goals with serve Socialist aspirations much better than Libertarian ones.

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

People are largely constructed by capitalism. Their opinions are largely constructed by capitalist media, which will always denounce anything not in the economic interests of the owners, managers and clients of the capitalist media.

Actions against the interest of capitalists will therefore never gain popularity until the flow of capital is disrupted and capitalist normality is disrupted. This is why the internet has been so disruptive and why they are fighting so desperately to gain control over it by destroying net neutrality.

To all my younger readers: This is why your parents' and grandparents' generations seem so much more obedient, brainwashed, and stupid than your own. They grew up in the age of centrally-controlled media (radio & TV). You didn't. It's all unraveling now, and there's no saving it. The truth cannot be stopped.

To everyone else: They built your mind since you were a child. It's your responsibility to unmake yourself from their lies and rebuild your mind on a foundation of radical truth. This will be difficult and painful, yes. But essential, you deserve to live in reality.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Quote from: practicaldreamer on October 17, 2014, 05:39:20 AM

You missed out "bullshit".

Sorry!

practicaldreamer

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

You missed out "bullshit".

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3990

Merit: 1385

Some of the words that describe what politicians say when they speak are:

deceit
deception
dishonesty
disinformation
distortion
evasion
fabrication
falsehood
fiction
forgery
inaccuracy

misrepresentation
myth
perjury
slander
tale
aspersion
backbiting
calumniation
calumny
defamation
detraction

fable
falseness
falsification
falsity
fib
fraudulence
guile
hyperbole
invention
libel
mendacity

misstatement
obloquy
prevarication
revilement
reviling
subterfuge
vilification
whopper
tall story

Sombody wanted to include "white lie," but that isn't really appropriate. "Black lie" would be.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: Beliathon on October 16, 2014, 06:04:20 PM

Regarding the "anti-labels" argument, I dislike this argument very much. Those labels do have meaning in that they represent where you fall on this:

For example, I identify as a social-anarchist, and when I take the test I fall almost on the absolute bottom left (collectivist) corner. Libertarians, by contrast, fall somewhere in the bottom right quadrant (neo-liberals).

If you're interested, you can take the test here and see for yourself where your values place your politics.

P.S.
All you libertarians should consider reading the very excellent book, A brief history of neo-liberalism.

I've already expressed my views here, here, here, here,here and here, Beliathon, so I don't feel like revisiting the subject.
Labels invariably escalate into personality conflicts, pitting protagonists and their supporters into warring camps at the expense of the issues.
Non-empirical metrics like the one you linked, meanwhile, use leading questions to pigeonhole us into convenient labels.
So no, I absolutely don't believe in labels.

Edit:
Just checked - the POlitical Compass is prepared by this guy - a BBC journalist with theatrical aspirations, and financed by this lady. The site also placed Mitt Romney and Bibi Netanyahu in the same quadrant (!). Obama and Manmohan Singh also shares the same quadrant. That aside, I simply can't accept their evaluation of Romney.

The FAQ states that
"How can you tell where they're honestly at by asking them? Especially around election time. We rely on reports, parliamentary voting records, manifestos … and actions that speak much louder than words."
Romney only transformed into a right wing conservative fundamentalist in 2012. Prior to that, especially during his term as Gov. of Massachusetts, he was a liberal in all but name. He pushed through the first state-level socialized healthcare system in the country. As Governor, he was pro-choice, pro-LGBT (he even gave an executive order for state agencies to recognize same sex marriages), he favored progressive taxation (and initially, even opposed the Bush tax cuts), he believed in the threat of climate change, he included farming subsidies in his state budget - I could go on. And yet, based on 2012 campaign rhetoric,the site pegged him to be a hawkish right-winger in the mold of Bibi. Grin

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Regarding the "anti-labels" argument, I dislike this argument very much. Those labels do have meaning in that they represent where you fall on this:

For example, I identify as a social-anarchist, and when I take the test I fall almost on the absolute bottom left (collectivist) corner. Libertarians, by contrast, fall somewhere in the bottom right quadrant (neo-liberals).

If you're interested, you can take the test here and see for yourself where your values place your politics.

P.S.
All you libertarians should consider reading the very excellent book, A brief history of neo-liberalism.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: practicaldreamer on October 16, 2014, 03:51:48 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 16, 2014, 03:43:21 PM

I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

What - this kind of cool you mean ?

You have a problem with my shell suit, fella? Well do you?
Quick, someone hold me.

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: forevernoob on October 16, 2014, 04:30:30 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 16, 2014, 03:43:21 PM

2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

2. Are you referring to the NAP being restrictive? I agree it is restrictive but in a good way. No force should be used ever. How is that bad?
3. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I think that's stupid. That's like saying we should never say black people just people.

Generalization is bad, and "black people" is often used in such a context. But sometimes it isn't for example if you want to describe the history of blues music you might say:
"Blues music originated from black musicians in the deep south"

In the same way ideologies are easier to describe if you have labels as a reference point.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Don't get me wrong I hate labels but we cannot erase them completely it just wouldn't work.

2. NAP is one aspect of libertarianism. I was speaking on the absolute parameters of both labels as a whole. Besides, NAP is not necessarily as clear a delineator as you might imagine.
3. To each his own then - though pigmentation is a biological classification. Entirely different from political, or, psychological labels, or Cosmo labels (Are you a Carrie, Samantha, Miranda or Charlotte?).

Well, at least I now know you hate labels. That's something I suppose. This exchange has gone on for far too long, I think. I'll exit here.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: rugrats on October 16, 2014, 03:43:21 PM

2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

2. Are you referring to the NAP being restrictive? I agree it is restrictive but in a good way. No force should be used ever. How is that bad?
3. I'm sorry but I disagree with you. I think that's stupid. That's like saying we should never say black people just people.

Generalization is bad, and "black people" is often used in such a context. But sometimes it isn't for example if you want to describe the history of blues music you might say:
"Blues music originated from black musicians in the deep south"

In the same way ideologies are easier to describe if you have labels as a reference point.

I hope you understand what I'm getting at. Don't get me wrong I hate labels but we cannot erase them completely it just wouldn't work.

practicaldreamer

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Quote from: rugrats on October 16, 2014, 03:43:21 PM

I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

What - this kind of cool you mean ?

rugrats

sr. member

Activity: 700

Merit: 250

Vave.com - Crypto Casino

Quote from: forevernoob on October 16, 2014, 01:21:55 PM

Quote from: rugrats on October 14, 2014, 01:46:17 AM

Very gracious of you, forevernoob. It's hard to find people with enough grace to offer apologies to strangers online. Many pats on the back, you deserve!

Let me assure you though, I am not apolitical. I am very, very political. I am just an equal opportunity asshole, as posters on the Democratic Underground, Daily Paul and Hannity forum will testify. In fact, I am gigantic troll on the Vanguard Forum (those racist supremacists deserve it though).

The thing is, if I accept labels, I have to defend and/or adhere to the parameters of said labels.

If I label myself as a liberal/socialist, I cannot scream in anger at Obama for capitulating to the demands of Congress in keeping Guantanamo open.
If I label myself as a libertarian, I cannot applaud Obama's iron will in preventing the United States from entering into a third war in Syria, despite the insistence of his entire cabinet (including SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, CIA Director Gen. Petraues and CJCS Gen. Dempsey) and the neoncons in Congress (watch this Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: )
If I label myself as a conservative, I cannot give credit to Obama for presiding over the lowest growth in Federal gov size since the Eisenhower administration.
If I label myself as a Green, I cannot criticize Obama for signing the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

I will be too busy hedging and hemming and hawing my opinions to toe my self-imposed label. By remaining free of such labels, I can stand on my own principles and beliefs. I am certain, you are also not comfortable with the entire political parameters of libertarianism.

I know of libertarians who get ulcers trying to reconcile the idea of child labor into their belief system, just because it fits with the current paleolibertarian zeitgeist.
I also know of fundamentalist conservatives whose conscience is torn asunder as they attempt to deny gays their right to love (interesting read: the love affair of David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel).
I know of liberals who froth in the mouth when it was revealed that Obama ordered the assasination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki (remember the DoJ whitepaper?).

If we are free from the shackles of labels, we are able to develop our own value system instead of relying on party platforms and flavor-of-the-month politicians. I feel insulted whenever someone tells me what I should think and believe in. Don't you feel the same?

Sometimes, I get the impression people are naming their favorite musical genres when speaking about their political beliefs.
Ooh, I'm a fan of techno and house music and I'm a crypto right wing anarchist.
Wow, you're so ordinary. I'm a fan of bluegrass and early Texas blues, and I'm a Jedi-liberal-constitutionalist.

1. Maybe you haven't noticed but I never outed myself as a libertarian in this thread. I'm not for throwing labels around.[/b]
2. But you cannot be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time. [/b]
Socialism uses force and therefor is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

The OP stated that he made a transition from socialism to libertarianism.
3. If we didn't have labels there would be no discussion and the OP wouldn't be able to describe the transition.

1. You didn't, did you? Noted.
2. One can have values that encompass aspects of both libertarianism and socialism if one does not create restrictive labels.
3. If we didn't have labels, OP doesn't need to transition between labels at all.

I only have one label. I'm a Red (not the hammer and sickle kind of Red - the cool kind).

ps: Rereading my earlier comment, I may have given the impression that the last couple of paragraphs was directed at you. It wasn't. I'm sorry if you were offended.

marcus_of_augustus

legendary

Activity: 3920

Merit: 2349

Eadem mutata resurgo

Quote from: shawshankinmate37927 on October 16, 2014, 11:34:10 AM

Corporations only have power that is given to them by the state. Take the power away from the state and the corporations are impotent. A corporation is nothing more than a legal entity created by the state.

... and their paying customers. Popular consumer and supplier revolt against corporations is effective. People still buy their products voluntarily.

shawshankinmate37927

hero member

Activity: 854

Merit: 1000

Bitcoin: The People's Bailout

Quote from: Beliathon on October 16, 2014, 11:54:44 AM

Oh wait, bitcoin is doing precisely that foir the first time in history!!! I almost forgot!

Well, people did trade amongst themselves without a government established money before they came along and hijacked it, but it has been a while.

forevernoob

hero member

Activity: 687

Merit: 500

Quote from: rugrats on October 14, 2014, 01:46:17 AM

Very gracious of you, forevernoob. It's hard to find people with enough grace to offer apologies to strangers online. Many pats on the back, you deserve!

Let me assure you though, I am not apolitical. I am very, very political. I am just an equal opportunity asshole, as posters on the Democratic Underground, Daily Paul and Hannity forum will testify. In fact, I am gigantic troll on the Vanguard Forum (those racist supremacists deserve it though).

The thing is, if I accept labels, I have to defend and/or adhere to the parameters of said labels.

If I label myself as a liberal/socialist, I cannot scream in anger at Obama for capitulating to the demands of Congress in keeping Guantanamo open.
If I label myself as a libertarian, I cannot applaud Obama's iron will in preventing the United States from entering into a third war in Syria, despite the insistence of his entire cabinet (including SecState Clinton, SecDefense Panetta, CIA Director Gen. Petraues and CJCS Gen. Dempsey) and the neoncons in Congress (watch this Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing: )
If I label myself as a conservative, I cannot give credit to Obama for presiding over the lowest growth in Federal gov size since the Eisenhower administration.
If I label myself as a Green, I cannot criticize Obama for signing the FAA Reauthorization Bill.

I will be too busy hedging and hemming and hawing my opinions to toe my self-imposed label. By remaining free of such labels, I can stand on my own principles and beliefs. I am certain, you are also not comfortable with the entire political parameters of libertarianism.

I know of libertarians who get ulcers trying to reconcile the idea of child labor into their belief system, just because it fits with the current paleolibertarian zeitgeist.
I also know of fundamentalist conservatives whose conscience is torn asunder as they attempt to deny gays their right to love (interesting read: the love affair of David and Jonathan in the book of Samuel).
I know of liberals who froth in the mouth when it was revealed that Obama ordered the assasination of American citizen Anwar Al-Awlaki (remember the DoJ whitepaper?).

If we are free from the shackles of labels, we are able to develop our own value system instead of relying on party platforms and flavor-of-the-month politicians. I feel insulted whenever someone tells me what I should think and believe in. Don't you feel the same?

Sometimes, I get the impression people are naming their favorite musical genres when speaking about their political beliefs.
Ooh, I'm a fan of techno and house music and I'm a crypto right wing anarchist.
Wow, you're so ordinary. I'm a fan of bluegrass and early Texas blues, and I'm a Jedi-liberal-constitutionalist.

Maybe you haven't noticed but I never outed myself as a libertarian in this thread. I'm not for throwing labels around.
But you cannot be a socialist and a libertarian at the same time.
Socialism uses force and therefor is not compatible with the non-aggression principle.

The OP stated that he made a transition from socialism to libertarianism.
If we didn't have labels there would be no discussion and the OP wouldn't be able to describe the transition.

Beliathon

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU

Quote from: practicaldreamer on October 16, 2014, 11:58:26 AM

It seems to me that the hegemony has sucessfully shunned to the sidelines, even the thought of, socialism - thereby bringing about a situation whereby the market is the only conceivable way forward.

That is correct, it's the McCarthyism hangover. I'll let Dr. Wolff explain:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fn6UJ2QcR7I
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DW1ONyrPhQ

They have demonized this word to the point where people fear it more than they fear the word fascism. It's a tale as old as time, control the populace through fear.

This is precisely how the corporate oligarchs have been able to march America right into a fascist police state with shit like the Patriot Act.

"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, Anarchy without fear

This quote could be altered to read "The measure of the capitalists' success is that the word socialism frightens people, while the word fascism does not." and would be just as true.

practicaldreamer

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

Can I just give you a few examples of how we in Europe might use certain terms ? (Or at least, how I would use them - I can't really speak on behalf of Europe as a whole, to be fair Roll Eyes

)

1) Public enterprise (socialist) The Three Gorges Dam.

2) Public/Private enterprise (capitalist) The Skye Bridge ( the Bank of America kindly funded that one Wink

(partially) )

3) Private enterprise (capitalist) British mining companies in Colombia.

I've got to be honest - I'm struggling to find anywhere in the USA any implementation of that which I would term "socialist" - we are definitely divided by a common language here Cheesy

   It seems that in the States, any endeavour funded by general taxation comes under the heading of socialism - and this is a parody of the term, a hollow caricature.
   It seems to me that the hegemony has sucessfully shunned to the sidelines, even the thought of (real/authentic) socialism - thereby bringing about a situation whereby the market is the only conceivable way forward.

   If that is the case, you are definitely being short changed.

Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 3. (Read 33788 times)