Pages:
Author

Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you? - page 4. (Read 33774 times)

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Once you give power to the state...
No one gives power to the state, the state takes power - by force. Every nation on Earth was born in blood. If you don't believe me, go try taking back the power without using violence and see how far you get.

Oh wait, bitcoin is doing precisely that foir the first time in history!!! I almost forgot!
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout
Once you give power to the state, the power will be used as directed by the highest bidder.  The only way to avoid that is to not give the power to the state.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
That means violence will be sold to the highest bidder: the corporations.
Already happening
Good point! Some would argue that America has already mostly abandoned democracy in favor of fascism.

Corporations do not magically dissolve with the loss of legal status, any more than armies magically dissolve with the loss of their King / president / general.

The corporation is a monster we have created, and it is a monster we will have to slay before this chapter of the human story comes to a close.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout
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.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
That means violence will be sold to the highest bidder: the corporations.

Already happening
legendary
Activity: 4690
Merit: 1276
It's not the employers that are responsible for this situation, but the bankers and politicians.
The corporate elite and the political elite are the same people. It's a completely corrupt caste system now. They go from the private to the public sphere and back. There's a reason they're all millionaires, they have to sell themselves to the corporations to even get the job!

Let me repeat that, the employers/executives/owners and the political leaders are the SAME PEOPLE. This is known as "revolving door" politics.



Great comics.  100% right about money in politics being one of the biggest problem in our political system (and most other people's as well.)  No political system will work well (in my and probably your definition of 'well') with this problem, and many political systems would work just fine without this problem.

The trouble I have is that 'socialism' does nothing in and of itself to address the problem.  Quite the opposite and most 'socialist' project are currently being driven by the same dynamic and by the same people who are the some of the biggest problems today.  As I view the U.S. at the present time it's actually quite far out on the 'socialist' end of the spectrum.  The movement in this 'socialist' direction corresponded with growth in this revolving door and explosion of money in politics.  Basically the 'capitalists' recognized 'socialism' as a great way to expand their operating environment and produce more opportunities.

I must say the Libertarians and/or small-govt types do have a viable way to reduce the problem.  Since govt is one half of the equation, reducing govt is an effective method of reducing the problem.  We who recognize some of the theoretical problems with pure laissez-faire society, especially at super-power scale, are simply remiss in not recognizing and addressing the problems with the alternatives.

I'll say it again that at this point I'm going with the Libertarians.  Part of this is that I've always been a fervent believer in 'liberty' and 'individualism', but the main reason is that I see the potential for positive moves to come out of a laissez-faire system.  Socialism, as a products of a fascist system (our current merger of state/corp power and public/private partnerships) will never become the kind of socialism I wish to see and has a very high likelihood of rapidly becoming something very ugly indeed.

hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
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.

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.
hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout
It's not the employers that are responsible for this situation, but the bankers and politicians.
The corporate elite and the political elite are the same people. It's a completely corrupt caste system now. They go from the private to the public sphere and back.

Let me repeat that, the employers/executives/owners and the political leaders are the SAME PEOPLE.

The state is not a creation of the corporations.  Corporations are a creation of the state.  Corporations derive their power from the state.  The solution is to take away the state's authority to initiate the use of force and make all interaction and exchange voluntary.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
It's not the employers that are responsible for this situation, but the bankers and politicians.
The corporate elite and the political elite are the same people. It's a completely corrupt caste system now. They go from the private to the public sphere and back. There's a reason they're all millionaires, they have to sell themselves to the corporations to even get the job!

Let me repeat that, the employers/executives/owners and the political leaders are the SAME PEOPLE. This is known as "revolving door" politics.







hero member
Activity: 854
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin: The People's Bailout
The scientific and intellectual community is always trying to shake people out of their haze of propaganda and work-exhaustion, but it's difficult. The plebs come home from their miserable jobs, and they don't want to learn, they don't want to think and debate. Can you blame them?

Thinking and learning require effort and commitment - real mental energy! They have none left as their employer has sucked it all out of them, along with their passion and ambition. How do we reach people who only want to turn their brains off and be entertained when they're not at work?

It's not the employers that are responsible for this situation, but the bankers and politicians.  It's their debt-based inflationary monetary system which is designed to ensure that most of us remain little more than serfs until we're eligible for Social Security.  Thanks to Satoshi, we can now opt out of that system.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Both of these guys are waking the people up.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/
Along with Slavoj Zizek, Richard Wolff, Ken Robinson, Jeremy Rifkin, Christopher Ryan, Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, John Taylor Gatto, Tristam Stuart, John Hunter, Daniel Quinn, and countless others.

The scientific and intellectual community is always trying to shake people out of their haze of propaganda and work-exhaustion, but it's difficult. The plebs come home from their miserable jobs, and they don't want to learn, they don't want to think and debate. Can you blame them?

Thinking and learning require effort and commitment - real mental energy! They have none left as their employer has sucked it all out of them, along with their passion and ambition. How do we reach people who only want to turn their brains off and be entertained when they're not at work?
legendary
Activity: 3906
Merit: 1373

      People here, and in many other parts of the UK, feel disenfranchised - and although in the end the result was (only just) to stay a part of the UK, I feel the ramifications of the debate will be felt for a long time - and hopefully in other parts of the UK and not just Scotland ( the north of England, for eg.)



Be sure, be sure, be sure, that IF Scotland becomes independent, that they keep the English common law as the foundation for their government.

Right now, if the people of Scotland use common law/Queens Bench properly, the can bypass a whole lot of English and Scottish government oppression. It's just that the people don't know how. It's the same in America with the people, American common law, and the United States government.

Youtube search "Karl Lentz common law" and "Bill Thornton common law." Bill Thornton is basically for the U.S., but Karl has branched out into the U.K.  Both of these guys are waking the people up.

http://www.unkommonlaw.co.uk/

Smiley
sr. member
Activity: 700
Merit: 250
Vave.com - Crypto Casino
With respect to homesteading in USA it was mainly a way to force the removal of indigenous peoples ...

Pish. Care to back that assertion with some source documentation?

The Homestead Act (responsible for the largest wave of homesteading) was enacted in order to aggrandize the nation (and thereby its 'leaders'), by development of natural resources. The displacement of the indigenous was merely a necessary consequence of this policy.

To truly understand the Homestead Act - its rationale, purpose and objective - one must look back to the very birth of the United States. And no, I don’t mean the English and Dutch Protestant refugees, the Mayflower, the cannibals of Jamestown, the Boston Tea Party or taxation without representation debate.

I am referring to the basic construct and essence behind the conception of the United States.

The United States is the direct product of the Age of Enlightenment. The idea that all men are equal; the flaw behind the dogma of the divine and absolute right of Kings and governments to rule over the people and Dominionism; the belief that the domination of merchant princes and land barons are detrimental to the rights and happiness of the common people; the debasement of humans under the tyranny of feudalism and serfhood; – all these were ideas that traveled across Europe and influenced the intelligentsia. Locke, Hobbes, Descartes and many others shaped a whole new generation of scholars and politicians, and the sociopolitical effects of the Age of Enlightenment inevitably shook Europe. 

The first large-scaled effect of the Age of Enlightenment manifested with the French Revolution. The March on Versailles and Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen powered the Third Estate, leading to the toppling of the monarchy.

These ideas resonated with mental giants such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine (I’ll get back to these two later), and before long, these ideas traversed across the Atlantic to the small community of scholars in the 13 colonies. The incubation of these ideas, flavored by local political upheavals and championed by geniuses in the mold of Thomas Jefferson, gave birth to America.

Make no mistake about it – the intelligentsia, guided by a new sense of morality, was the catalyst behind the American Revolution. Franklin campaigned tirelessly across both sides of the Atlantic educating the thought and political leaders; Paine begged and pleaded for money from half a dozen European countries; dozens of others giants of early American history crisscrossed the colonies giving moral and intellectual purpose to the Revolution. The American Revolution was designed to be a moral one, to give everyone the opportunity to achieve happiness.

But the key ingredient in the revolution is Thomas Jefferson. The third American president is not a natural politician, and were it not for the machinations of Alexander Hamilton, Jefferson would have retreated to a life of scholarly pursuits after independence. But I digress. The point is, Thomas Jefferson provided the Revolution with its moral spine. At just 33-years of age, he was entrusted with drafting the Declaration of Independence. A year later, he wrote The Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom, which would go on to serve as the basis of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. His protégé, James Madison, working under his guidance, would go on to draft the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Sure, many others played a role in the eventual success of the Revolution, but Jefferson was the thought leader of the entire movement. A polyglot (he reportedly could speak 11 languages) and a polymath (lawyer, architect, violinist, philosopher, translator, etc.), Jefferson was hugely respected, massively influential. So much so, 51-year- old Vermont Representative Matthew Lyon once spat tobacco juice at 37-year-old Connecticut Representative Roger Griswold for insulting Jefferson, nearly starting a Congressional free-for-all.

If you spend time reading about Jefferson, you will realize how so many of his ideas remain relevant to this day. He was a man far, far ahead of his time. He believed in the equality of men (he had a black mistress and five children, which Hamilton made public courtesy of poison-letters written by James Callender); he believed in Women's Suffrage (trivia: John Adams’ wife, Abigail, was one of his best friends – platonic relationships were highly irregular then); he insisted on the separation of Church and state; he detested the power of banks, giant companies and religious bodies; he loathed feudalism and the unchecked power of monarchy (ironic that Hamilton accused him of being a royalist, a mole for the English crown); most of all, he believed in the inalienable right of the common man to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

His two protégés, James Madison and James Monroe, would go on to shape the very young United States with the Jeffersonian Ideals following consecutive two-term administrations.



His legacies persist to this day, even if numerous aspects of have been devolved and distorted. But every American president since have been guided by the legacies and principles he laid down.

Abraham Lincoln, by all accounts, was a man of average intelligence, with only a couple of years’ worth of formal education behind him. But like Jefferson, he was a man guided by principles and convictions, and was so open, he was utterly incapable of subterfuge. His nickname, Honest Abe, was a truly deserved one. In the 1860 presidential election, no one thought he could win. Heck, no one even thought he could secure the party’s nomination.

After all, he parroted Jefferson’s beliefs of equality, abolishment of slavery and emancipation and homesteading. But against all odds, the man who had never experienced a life of luxury won the Republican nomination, defeating favorites William Seward and Salmon Chase.

In the run-up to the election, Democratic candidate Sen. Stephen Douglas practically campaigned for Lincoln by focusing his campaign almost exclusively on Lincoln’s radical ideas. And yet, Lincoln won, massively at that, securing 180 out of 303 electoral seats – despite the threat of secession by seven states. His ideals were clearly shared by people of the land (at least a majority of them).

I tell you about these two men so you may accept their words at face value and their reasoning for the Homestead Act, instead of accepting revisionist accounts.

Now, let’s be clear about one thing. Although Jefferson established the Democratic-Republican Party, which is the progenitor of today’s Democratic Party and Republican Party, Jefferson was not a man of one ideology. He displayed strong leanings, in equal measures, to libertarianism, socialism and republicanism. If you do not have the time to spare to read books about this colossus of a man, you can find literally dozens of his quotes which would reflect this.

Here are two contrasting Jefferson quotes that display his John Locke-inspired libertarian and socialist values, specifically in regards to homesteading:

Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 17, 157—61, 1784 (Volume 5, Page 79-80)
“But our rulers can have authority over such natural rights only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury  for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”


“As few as possible should be without a little portion of land. The earth is given as common stock for man to labor and live on. The small landholders are the most precious part of the state […] Those who labor in the earth are the chosen people of God, if He ever had a chosen people, whose breast He has made His peculiar deposit for substantial and genuine virtue."


"These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich .... The Rich alone use imported article, and on these alone the whole taxes of the General Government are levied. The poor man ... pays not a farthing of tax to the General Government, but on his salt; and should we go into that manufacture also, as is probable, he will pay nothing."


Now, compare the above quotes with two of Lincoln’s (in similar order)

“I think that I have said it in your hearing that I believe each individual is naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit of his labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man’s rights—that each community, as a State, has a right to do exactly as it pleases with all the concerns within that State that interfere with the rights of no other State, and that the general government, upon principle, has no right to interfere with anything other than that general class of things that does concern the whole. I have said that at all times.”
Abraham Lincoln, “Speech at Chicago, Illinois,” July 10, 1858


Abraham Lincoln, February 12, 1861
“[…] the wild lands of the country should be distributed so that every man should have the means and opportunity of benefitting his condition.”



Over two million claims were made following Lincoln’s Homestead and Morril Act. At least 780,000 were approved after the required five-year residency period (understandably, exact numbers are murky since the internet was over a century away). Regardless, the Act is directly responsible for the settlement of at least ten percent of American land across 49 states. Can we just stop for a second and think of how many families and their descendants who have benefitted directly from the Act?

As I’ve originally stated last week, the Homestead Act is definitively, the single most successful economic policy in the history of the United States – and the most socialist one as well.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
Back on topic: capitalism is still awful, and anyone who defends it is at best an indoctrinated ignorant first-worlder or at worst a sociopathic privileged parasite at the top of the pyramid.

Which are you?







legendary
Activity: 3038
Merit: 1660
lose: unfind ... loose: untight
With respect to homesteading in USA it was mainly a way to force the removal of indigenous peoples ...

Pish. Care to back that assertion with some source documentation?

The Homestead Act (responsible for the largest wave of homesteading) was enacted in order to aggrandize the nation (and thereby its 'leaders'), by development of natural resources. The displacement of the indigenous was merely a necessary consequence of this policy.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 500
BTW, my mom just got back from a visit to Scotland.  She had some friends there (fellow wood carvers) and was able to visit with normal people and see the real country and not do the total tourist thing.  She was very impressed with the country and the people.  This was shortly before the Independence vote and there were passions and rational points on both sides of the issue.

    Glad she enjoyed it - but tell her that if she didn't make it to the Highlands and Islands then she hasn't seen the half of it - and will need to make a return visit.
      The referendum debate - and it went on for at least 12 months - I personally thought was great. It got people thinking about and discussing issues that you wouldn't normally hear discussed, for example currency issues. Everyone is so disillusioned with the political process these days, but the independance issue really got us all talking.
      People here, and in many other parts of the UK, feel disenfranchised - and although in the end the result was (only just) to stay a part of the UK, I feel the ramifications of the debate will be felt for a long time - and hopefully in other parts of the UK and not just Scotland ( the north of England, for eg.)


BTW bitcoin hasn't changed my views towards libertarianism. Why ? Amongst many other reasons, the National Health Service.
..your statement above to lack enough info to understand what you are saying so if you have the energy to further clarify I would appreciate it.

  I just meant that, were it the case that the libertarians had their way, there would be no NHS within the UK.

   I don't have any experience of the healthcare system in the US - but I do know that it is built upon private health insurance. And I do know that here in the UK, in the past, we have had our share of health tourists from the US - usually from your middle classes. Which would suggest to me that your system can't be all that hot  Wink

    The NHS is such a cherished institution amongst the people of the UK that regular polls show that the majority of us would gladly pay more tax in order to sustain the service. The politicians also know that it would be political suicide to ever dare threaten the NHS - at least openly.
     [So now they are trying to privatise it by the back door.]


   There is something very precious and important to the people of this country in having a health service that is free at the point of delivery, regardless of wether you are a prince or a pauper, that is there for you in your hour of need - and in existence not to make a buck out of you but to serve you. It is possibly the one single thing that people across the political spectrum are united on.

   I'm sure the libertarians will be here soon to tell me how effective the private model is (pointing to Switzerland for eg.), how wasteful the NHS is etc etc etc.

   All I can really say is, don't knock it till you've tried it Wink
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 502
bitcoin changing your guys religion too now?  Roll Eyes

Bitcoin IS my religion now  Cheesy

In the name of Satoshi of the Blockchain and of the Holy SHA. Amen?


You're going to fit right in here.  Judas and I will have a cold beer waiting for you.   Wink
As long as that's a real German or Belgian beer, and not that american pisswater, we're good.
Eastern European beers (like Czech) are also great.


Pfft. Real men drink scotch. Neat. From a flagon. Served by freckled red-headed wenches.


Read this Poem I wrote before some time claiming Satoshi as my Saviour..

In this world bred with greed,
I belong to debt enslaved creed,
caught in this middle class prison
commitments without any reason

I belong to a developing nation,
filled with corruption and inflation.
even my bones pain from exploitation
always in a desire for exaltation.

Along came internet,
but only to connect,
Along came social network
To rob  our personal stuff

Yet this new ray of promise
a decentralized marvel of mathematics
I see a religion of the free,
To financial freedom I spree!

If trajectory truly goes to moon
The pleasures of wealth blurs my mind
I dare, call Satoshi my Almighty
and bitcoin my saviour!

This is just written after a tiresome day at the end of college!
I am trying to improve!
Suggestions welcome

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-is-my-saviour-704687
sr. member
Activity: 700
Merit: 250
Vave.com - Crypto Casino
bitcoin changing your guys religion too now?  Roll Eyes

Bitcoin IS my religion now  Cheesy

In the name of Satoshi of the Blockchain and of the Holy SHA. Amen?


You're going to fit right in here.  Judas and I will have a cold beer waiting for you.   Wink
As long as that's a real German or Belgian beer, and not that american pisswater, we're good.
Eastern European beers (like Czech) are also great.


Pfft. Real men drink scotch. Neat. From a flagon. Served by freckled red-headed wenches.
legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
bitcoin changing your guys religion too now?  Roll Eyes

Bitcoin IS my religion now  Cheesy
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1000
https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU
You're going to fit right in here.  Judas and I will have a cold beer waiting for you.   Wink
As long as that's a real German or Belgian beer, and not that american pisswater, we're good.
Pages:
Jump to: