Topic: Has Bitcoin changed your political position - page 2. (Read 4757 times)
Still hasn't decided what my political position is, but as far as i can say now, nothing in Denmark fits my needs, so im just gonna vote blank.
i originally got into bitcoin when i was an agorist. it sort of went hand in hand with it. i have always considered myself a libertarian, although i now consider myself an anarchist and thus much further left now than when an agorist. so.... i suppose bitcoin has not changed my positions.....
How does it make you feel when confronted with all these libertarians and agorists these days? Idiots, eh! You must feel so retarded looking back to when you were an ignorant agorist, my god
i originally got into bitcoin when i was an agorist. it sort of went hand in hand with it. i have always considered myself a libertarian, although i now consider myself an anarchist and thus much further left now than when an agorist. so.... i suppose bitcoin has not changed my positions.....
I was a left boy but I become more and more a pirate arr
You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade.
Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral.
...
Do raw eggs fit in long range potato guns?
Just wondering...
Mike, did you mean to say "not my mortal men" or "not by moral men" in your sig? Everyone is mortal
I think he's saying that if anarchism is not possible and government is necessary, then the government must be done by divine beings who transcend human nature. If government is necessary because of man's evil nature, then man is incapable of governing. So if we accept the lie that our government is good and necessary, we are necessarily attributing divinity and transcendence of mortality and human nature to our rulers.
But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
I think that's exactly what he's saying.
Mike, did you mean to say "not my mortal men" or "not by moral men" in your sig? Everyone is mortal
I think he's saying that if anarchism is not possible and government is necessary, then the government must be done by divine beings who transcend human nature. If government is necessary because of man's evil nature, then man is incapable of governing. So if we accept the lie that our government is good and necessary, we are necessarily attributing divinity and transcendence of mortality and human nature to our rulers.
But maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Mike, did you mean to say "not my mortal men" or "not by moral men" in your sig? Everyone is mortal
Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral.
(Oh, you probably meant some other ways....)
Nah, that's pretty much it. Without government there to take your taxes, and then use your tax money to pay for police to protect bad businessmen and politicians, those types will have to pay for their own protection of their own person and property, which is directly proportional to how much they piss other people off. Protection like that is way more expensive and way less profitable than playing by the rules, since even something as simple as a cheap $50 bomb near your factory pipeline, or a $5 bar of baking yeast in your house's septic tank, can make things way more costly and unpleasant.
You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade.
Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral.
(Oh, you probably meant some other ways....)
Nah, that's pretty much it. Without government there to take your taxes, and then use your tax money to pay for police to protect bad businessmen and politicians, those types will have to pay for their own protection of their own person and property, which is directly proportional to how much they piss other people off. Protection like that is way more expensive and way less profitable than playing by the rules, since even something as simple as a cheap $50 bomb near your factory pipeline, or a $5 bar of baking yeast in your house's septic tank, can make things way more costly and unpleasant.
You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade.
Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral.
(Oh, you probably meant some other ways....)
Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think. They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic.
Decentralized governance sounds safer
I prefer the name Voluntaryism.
This also more positively defines the goal. Namely that all interactions should be voluntary.
The name "anarchism" only defines what it should be not (no ruling hierarchy).
I like that one; let's roll with voluntaryism
I love the new Voluntaryist text under your avatar, Mike.
the thing is, if you want a "real" anarchist society, you'd need a central government or force to ensure that nobody gains too much power and influence on society.. which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Everything always comes down to incentives. You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade. With such a method, it would be in everyone's best interest to not gain political power, and stay out of the political spotlight.
no, why would it?
Because acting like a herd animal means you're always given the opportunity to make truly logical and moral choices. If you think and act independently, you just end up going along with group consensus all the time.
89 responses. God damn I feel popular
no, why would it?
To me anarchy means the exact opposite of chaos - it means spontaneous order, productivity, and the ability to build a satisfying life.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I guess that's because you're actually paying attention, instead of having your concepts and frames of reference being spoon-fed to you by your culture
It turns out growing up as a social outcast is a bit of an advantage for some things in life.
To me anarchy means the exact opposite of chaos - it means spontaneous order, productivity, and the ability to build a satisfying life.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I guess that's because you're actually paying attention, instead of having your concepts and frames of reference being spoon-fed to you by your culture
It turns out growing up as a social outcast is a bit of an advantage for some things in life.
To me anarchy means the exact opposite of chaos - it means spontaneous order, productivity, and the ability to build a satisfying life.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
I guess that's because you're actually paying attention, instead of having your concepts and frames of reference being spoon-fed to you by your culture
Order as an emergent property of any system can be readily observed anywhere in nature and the cosmos. It has even been proved mathematically (by Ilya Prigogine) that disorderly systems tend to spontaneously reorganize themselves at higher levels of coherence.
Only the brainwashed believe that order is something that has to be imposed by human interaction.
the thing is, if you want a "real" anarchist society, you'd need a central government or force to ensure that nobody gains too much power and influence on society.. which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?
Not really. You have to look at protection as just another service. At the moment it is monopolised in any given area (country) by one service provider (government) who forces you to pay.
Imagine if you had competing protection service providers and you could voluntarily choose which one protects you. I'm pretty sure in a competition setting these guys wouldn't be charging the same extortionate fees that the government does (taxes). After all, you don't have to pay any of them.
The question at that point you are probably curious about is what would happen when customers of different agencies come into conflict. Well, that's where arbitration agencies come into play.
Everything provided by the government can be provided by the market. After all, it's just humans doing it in both cases.
Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think. They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic.
What alot of people don't understand is: Chaos ≠ Anarchy. Real Anarchy would be infinitely better than this shit storm of a mess.
Oh yes, that's a big deal. Our cultural operating system has connected Anarchy to Chaos by simple association, by saying it over and over again. Kind of like "freedom and democracy" is a widely used phrase. So let me point out, that if it is "Anarchy AND Chaos" and "Freedom AND Democracy" this logically means that anarchy is NOT chaos and freedom is NOT democracy. Otherwise the words in the sentences would be redundant
The whole discussion surrounding anarchy is always so weird. People saying we can't live without rules and then claiming in Anarchy there would be chaos. Even though they themselves are living proof that people are absolutely obsessed with creating rules. Of course there would be rules in Anarchy. There would just be a lack of an universal set of rules, applicable to everybody (except those with the means to bribe the system) and enforceable by a central authority with the legal monopoly on the initiation of force. That's all. Oh an maybe, just maybe, having 100s of different kinds of something is preferable to having only one of it. You know, like, central point of failure kind of thingy. And a little something called "diversity" - I just had this incredible thought, that maybe not everyone is exactly alike.
To me anarchy means the exact opposite of chaos - it means spontaneous order, productivity, and the ability to build a satisfying life.
I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order. Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.
Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think. They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic.
Decentralized governance sounds safer
I prefer the name Voluntaryism.
This also more positively defines the goal. Namely that all interactions should be voluntary.
The name "anarchism" only defines what it should be not (no ruling hierarchy).
I like that one; let's roll with voluntaryism
I like that one as well, and it has a nice logo.
I honestly use a lot of terms to describe myself. Forgive me but in some contexts I still call myself conservative - but I do so pointing out how the "conservative" politicians violate all that I ever believed was conservative, and point out how a consistent application of the values I believe in (usually the values of the person I'm addressing, if I am using this term) leads to libertarianism/anarchism. Then again in other contexts I'll say I'm not a conservative (usually when the person I'm addressing uses the term "conservative" to mean a particular set of coercive views that I don't hold - examples being imperialism, the war on drugs, coercion to enforce religious values, etc.)
I call myself an anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, a voluntaryist, an anti-statist, a libertarian, a freedom-lover a conservative, a paleoconservative, and probably others I can't think of at the moment. Whatever term I'm using at the moment, it's an attempt to explain my belief that we are all better off if we reject coercion, reject the state (as an institution of coercion), and cooperate only on a voluntary basis - and that doing so is the only right and moral way to behave and build a society.
Jump to: