Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 37. (Read 33774 times)

My arguement here is that a conspiracy that the whole left ideology and all socialism was created by the goverment and wealthy elite so that the rich remains rich and the poor remains poor and middle class trapped in debt slavery and financial trap.

because while any tax is raised, the poor is excluded, the 1% rich is less affected and the it is the middle class and uppermiddle class entrapped in financial slavery which suffers great and left to pursue day jobs and discourages innovation. As a result competition goes down and monopoly rules the market

Been on both the socialist and libertarian side for a while
Keep the balance between the two so pretty much was aligned to it in the first place lol.

By liberal do you mean a classical liberal in favor of small government and individual liberty, or the kind of liberal who believes in government solving all of our problems with high taxes, spending and regulation?

I'm not sure how the terms are used in Europe, but in the US, liberal basically means moderate socialist.

Yeah, its had the same effect on me.
I started quite moderate, not really caring/thinking about politics but getting into bitcoin, hacking and security has turned me into a liberal much to the disgust of my friend who's father is in UKIP...

Your missing the point that sociopaths and psychopaths naturally gravitate to positions of power whether it be state government or Corporations who derive their power from the violence of the state.

It's not solely about the state and our antagonism towards it. It is about any entity, State, Corporation, Gang, or individual who doesn't respect some foundational principles we all tend to agree upon but many hypocritically ignore when it comes to those psychopaths that control us.

There is indeed differences under the current model and anarcho-capatalists models-

Most common Current Model of land ownership- A "Social Contract" is imposed without consent upon the unborn, A person has the right to purchase land in a society in a crony-capitalist state with the states approval and with restrictions, The state has a right to steal the property at will with eminent domain or private gangsters/corporations can bribe the state to steal your property, You are bound by a non -consensual contract to pay taxes on the land whether or not you use or depend upon the services rendered by the state(thus you are essentially renting the land and not technically owning it.)

One anarchist proposal - No social contract is imposed upon the unborn but children are born into a world where ownership of a small percentage of available land already exists. Ownership rules of land is determined by a unanimous (100%) agreed upon community standard(Remember governments can exist in Anarchism as long as they respect some core principles of self ownership and the NAP), each society could have different rules and people would have freedom to voluntarily agree to which standards they wish to live by. If any homeowner fees are agreed upon within the contract their must be escape clauses that allow one to easily leave the community and cancel the contract.



There are other possibilities during a transitional period of state governments to no state governments. Individuals or groups who have legally purchased the rights to property could either gift or sell parcels of land or apartments where a contract is drawn that they are in complete agreement towards.
It would be wise to consider provisions and an escape clause to allow people to leave said community ahead of time if they wish to.

  Stop - there isn't a functional difference between states and private land where the state is in the back pocket of private wealth.

  But if I pay my rent to the state, who then uses said revenue to help pay for the social programmes that help stop the spread of tuberculosis in impoverished communities existing within(otherwise) advanced industrial societies ie. rich societies - rather than paying it to private landowners such as Nicholas Van Hoogstraten to blow on hookers, cocaine and repressing democratic uprisings in the Congo - well there's a very large difference indeed, I reckon.

Or am I missing something here ?

We're saying the same thing. There is not functional difference between states and private land if we acknowledge ownership of land that is simply claimed, and not actively utilized.

You were on the right track until this. Society doesn't care what you believe, unless you're willing to a) give your own land to "new" people or b) force your will on someone else.

You are extrapolating a hypothetical that doesn't reflect reality. Most land is unused or simply owned by governments worldwide. Even if the population grew to 9 billion each human could own over 4 acres of land.

You are ignoring the subtle details of homesteading which apply in anarchistic societies.

While all anarcho-capatalists acknowledge ownership of themselves and personal property , there is debate as to how and if land can be owned , under what circumstances , and for how long. Remember, property ownership within anarchism is solely derived from the acceptance that you own yourself and thus own the fruits of your labor, thus land barons who horde land don't own or deserve the right to said property and thus they are subject to homesteading. The state is actually what protects tyrants and wealthy with acquiring land rights they don't develop and need. In an Anarchistic society not maintaining and using the land would make you lose ownership alone.

Personally, I believe society should grant a small plot of land voluntarily to all humans at a certain age and allow them to freely work it, rent it , or sell it. This can be done entirely voluntarily and with mutual agreement. Current property owners would naturally have certain benefits above new property owners but not necessarily so: I.E.... new crowdsourced anarchistic communities could be created with better designs and infrastructures that would make existing cities obsolete.

If you take anarcho-capitalism to the next logical step, you'll see the NAP is arbitrary. What is the difference between a state, and a large piece of privately owned land where tenants pay a fee for use follow the owners rules? Consent. But then what if all the land is already owned, and you don't have a choice but to live on someone else's private property and pay them a portion of your earnings? There is no difference between this, and states. None. The conclusion I've come to is the basic principal that is the root of all government, is boarder. Property lines. That is, taking ownership of land for which you have not made your own through labor. Of course this land can then be sold, but someone needs to have come to own it through labor for any subsequent claims to be valid.

Fixed that obvious error for you.  Libertarians have very little if any impact on the political process.  They're lucky if they can even get 1% of the vote.

I was a Libertarian-leaning conservative when I started but gradually became more of a hardcore Libertarian. I've actually backpedaled a little bit toward being more moderate. Maybe the liberal college environment is getting to me despite my care.

This is a quite an essay.  Wow.  This guy is smart and I like these ideas.

Nations don't have wealth.  Individuals do.  It's that collectivist "we" nonsense that libertarians don't buy into.  "We" are not a family that needs to equally share our wealth amongst ourselves.  If you want to be part of a collective and share your wealth with the other members of that collective, then by all means go for it, but don't try to force people to be a part of it.

It strikes me that libertarianism is a newish buzzword for something very old. Ayn Rand down from Nietschze down from Machiavelli down through the ages.

   But the libertarian idyll is already here, incarnate and being lived out - it isn't something far away to be aspired towards, its here now. If there were to be any less taxation of the likes of the Koch brothers and their ilk on Park Avenue, then there would be a serious danger of civil unrest - and not just in the US. Public spending performs a function - even for the billionaire. Erode public sector unions in Wisconsin, yes, but lets not push a dog too far into a corner otherwise the whole house of cards might come tumbling down. Libertarianism is already here folks - so it makes you wonder what the Koch's of this world are banging on about with their Cato Institute and their Competitive Enterprise Institute ? They must be either  a] in the ongoing process of legitimating and (so) securing their positions to the US public,  or b] whistling as they go past the graveyard.

   The 1% have been very effective in enhancing their share of the wealth/power pie over the last half a century - largely through a combination of deregulation, globalisation, the breaking of trade unions etc,  ie. the free market being allowed to work its magic unfettered by state interference (otherwise known as Libertarianism in practice). Indeed, national Governments have been subverted by private capital - and so, with them, representative democracy - and put to work in its service. You kind of expect this of a Republican Government (or Conservative here in the UK) - but the Democrats (Labour Party) ? What the fuck is going on here ? It was precisely this kind of betrayal that turned Kim Philby into a spy - and that was in 1931 FFS. Likewise Edward Snowden.
  
    It is this sequestration of the Government by private capital that should be the real cause for concern here - not government per se. But lets not just look at the Government - lets look at the very culture that we live and breathe - who dictates that ? You and I ? No, I don't think so - well, maybe we do here on this forum at least   And of course, the networked economy/society has a massive role to play here.



   So, we have now libertarianism at work and in practice for all to see. And what do we have ? - a sham of a society, a jungle. No social cohesion, no shared values (barely any values at all), mass unemployment, poor to non existent public services, our childrens futures mortgaged to the hilt, class A drugs flooding in (despite us occupying Afghanistan for the last decade), cultural degeneration. Its a fucking sham - whoever is steering this ship can they please stand up ?  Its barely a society at all - just a loose collection of paranoid, insecure and hopeless individuals who aren't quite ready to admit to themselves that the utopian dreams of self determination in the land of the free that they have been fed since birth are nothing more than a sacharine sweet palliative fed to children to settle them when its dark at night - a fairytale.

    Please don't talk to me about "voluntaryism" - the needy will be provided for from the kindness and charity of their well off neighbours ? No they won't - their neighbours will live in gated communities and will be doing everything possible to justify to themselves their privilege, as they always have and indeed are doing right now. They will pay as little as possible to anyone outside their immediate field of need. They will do their utmost not to come into contact with the "Unwashed" - and, human nature being what it is, they will come to believe that they aren't "fortunate" at all, they are deserving.
    And to be honest, if I, for one, were ever to be in the unfortunate position of being offered your (albeit) voluntary charity, I'd tell you to stick it up your arse Jack  . Give me whats rightfully mine you thieving fuck - keep your charity for puppy dogs rescues  


     I believe a lot of the US citizens on here (Bitcointalk) are libertarians - and I believe a lot of you are genuine and want whats best for your country and the people therein. And in bitcoin you see a way forward, as do we all.
    But for me the libertarian ideal  [and what is it at heart, after all ? Less tax and less government ? Lets keep it at that and not bring in "freedom" and "rights" hey ? ]  well, at best its naive. Its naive , that is, if what we are aspiring towards is a fully employed and functional society, with citizens who have a feeling of self worth, and who are not only able to participate in the nations vibrant cultural life, but also able to participate in holding their share of the nations wealth.
    If however we are aspiring to a state of affairs whereby the 1% own a half of planet Earth and a philosophical legitimation wherin "the fortunate" do nothing more than "find virtue in that which perpetuates their good fortune" - then stand easy, all is as it should be - and bitcoin will only augment the status quo.

  

   Hope I haven't offended anyone - but I'm not a politician, and I don't expect to make any friends here.


    

Socialism is nonsense. Welcome to libertarianism

Have you read the most recent blog post from Oleg Andreev, entitled "Bitcoin is not compatible with the State"?
http://blog.oleganza.com/
  Please excuse the huge amount of text I'm going to copy and paste, but I think it's worth reading.

Bitcoin and State do not go together at all. Neither logically, nor economically.

Logically, if you think that the state is a useful and viable institution and Bitcoin is a useful and viable technology, you are lying to yourself. State is a hierarchical construction of “trusted third parties” (TTPs). In theory, some social interactions may involve a conflict that may be resolved by a trusted third party (arbiter). In a nation state it is ultimately some government agency (e.g. a cop). In case there’s a conflict between a citizen and a government agency, there is another government agency to watch over it. Thus, a cop is watched by his chief, a chief is watched by a court, court is watched by a parliament or a president, and those are being overthrown by an angry mob from time to time. The theory goes that every single conflict can be justly resolved by the state if parties cannot resolve it by themselves.

Bitcoin is an attempt to remove some trusted third parties from equation. That is all sorts of financial institutions including government regulators. From the Bitcoin perspective, it is a moral hazard to enable control over money supply and monetary flows to a hierarchy of trusted third parties. History is full of examples when private banks and government agencies could manipulate and destroy entire economies by being able to produce money without limits or censor its use. Bitcoin is strange and a bit complicated way to protect all users of money. Users can transact without need for any third party to record and acknowledge their transactions, and what’s more, no one can even become a third party by hijacking the system and imposing controls and rules on its usage. The former is not possible without the latter.

So if you support the idea of Bitcoin, you acknowledge the hazard of entrusting the entire economy to trusted third parties. You acknowledge that the ultimate power must be spread thin among every single participant and never be entrusted in hands of a few, even if it’s a democratically elected government. (Trusted third parties on top of decentralized foundation are fine as long as every person has equal access to that foundation and can jump off anytime.) But if you acknowledge the hazard of TTPs, then what arguments are left for any other government activity? Government is the ultimate trusted third party to resolve disputes in the entire economy. If there’s a conflict in a monetary system and we need Bitcoin to resolve it so no banker, judge or president could have personal interest in it, then the same applies to any other conflict. Every conflict could have someone’s personal interest in it to screw things up. The fact that we rely on the government to resolve it only shows that we couldn’t find a safer way yet. By supporting Bitcoin you give up all arguments for validity of the State.

If you, however, prefer the State, then supporting Bitcoin is illogical: why do you need such a complex and hard to understand (for non-hackers) system if every problem can be solved with trusted third parties? Look, Visa processes bazillion of transaction per day by just flipping the bits in their database. Bitcoin cannot do that, it is a consensus network that needs everyone to be aware of all transactions. Making instant payments requires extra complexity on top of that existing complexity. Also, there’s constant hazard of computer viruses and backdoors that steal your coins. If you believe that problems can be efficiently solved simply by electing trusted people, than Bitcoin is a huge overhead. So you should pick one: Bitcoin or State.

But most importantly, Bitcoin and State will never survive together for economical reasons.

State exists because it can. It can pay for its expenses, pay for those who enforce the laws, write the laws, brainwash children in schools and adults in evening news.

How does the state pay for its expenses? First, the government controls money supply. If needed, money is just being “borrowed” from the government’s puppet bank under promise to repay the debt (with interest!) from the extracted taxes (or by borrowing even more from the same place). When the state wants to go to war, enormous amount of money can’t be just extracted and is being printed. Extra money flows into markets, prices go up, business plans get messed up, people’s savings get destroyed and they lose their jobs at the same time. But we are at war, so folks are better to work harder “for the children” and maybe even join the army (you lost your job, after all).

Second, the state is paid by all those good businesses that must use banking system to operate. And the banking system is all heavily licensed and cooperative with the state. A lot of monetary flows are monitored by the tax collectors. Natural greed makes people avoid taxation just like all other costs, but taxes are avoided only in black market and by small businesses working with cash. Everyone who accepts cash hides some percentage from the taxman. If not for personal greed, but at least under competitive pressure by tax evaders (e.g. your café cannot survive if you don’t increase your profit margin by not paying 10% of the taxes like all your competitors do). If you business has to work with partners over the wire, you had to use banks and pay 100% of your taxes. With Bitcoin banks are not necessary. Bitcoin allows you to trade with anyone on the entire planet with near-zero costs. More businesses would bypass Banks and as a side effect, more businesses would be able to withhold their taxes from the state. Competition would force other businesses to drive their costs down the same way. Bitcoin will become a black hole that grows and attracts more and more people in it.

From the point of view of tax collectors, however, it’s the other way around. In Bitcoin world government cannot pay cops IOUs it makes up. It must pay real bitcoins that it must extract first from the businesses. But as more and more businesses avoid paying more and more taxes, there is less money being left for the government. That means that extraction will become increasingly less effective and therefore allowing even more people to avoid taxation on even larger scale. This cycle would repeat until all government employees will run away to seek real jobs because their bosses wouldn’t be able to pay them a single penny.

So if Bitcoin continues to grow, the nation state would peacefully dissolve. If state is to be preserved, Bitcoin must be stopped and never allowed again. However, the more people invest in Bitcoin, the more interest, wealth and power is on its side to protect it against any aggression. They didn’t invest in Bitcoin to try it out. They invested to make it ubiquitous and global phenomenon and they all will fight hard to make it happen. At some point we will witness a critical mass of supporters that no one will be able to stop. And then there will be no state anymore.

are you from north korea?

"Libertarian socialism" = a perversion and inversion of the real principles of liberty.

Ask someone who "doesn't believe in property" to give you theirs and
see what happens.

something like that: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPl_Y3Qdb7Y