Topic: Has Bitcoin changed your political position - page 3. (Read 4748 times)

Right, all you'd need to do is defend your rights.  You could do that collectively+voluntarily, or individually - each person could use his efforts and resources as he sees fit.

No need for a government - just institutions that defend rights without using coercion.  If one of those institution or some other institution starts infringing rights, you handle it in the same way: start a new one.  (Or individually if you believe that will work out better.)

We fear most what we misunderstand

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. 

From Skeptical Keynesian
To Anti Keynesian
Not sure where that goes in politics anti-neoliberalism to transitional socialism ?

So you're saying, the only way to have a society without coercion...is to be coercive?  You're going in circles here; you're recreating what we already have.  Any reason in particular why people can't simply reject coercion?

Well , in the last 23 years we changed the ruling party with every election and just got in deeper....
There are countries in this world were you can't change your political position , because it's only one.

For instance , the ruling alliance here is made out of:
 1) social democrats
 2) liberals
 3) conservators
 4) union for progress

So , skipping the fact that i don't get how you can rule with both 3 and 4 views , quite the mess isn't it?

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?

Maybe we should get a professional marketing company onto it 

So... VoluntoCapitalism? Or VolunterioCapitalism? 

I like that one; let's roll with voluntaryism

What alot of people don't understand is: Chaos ≠ Anarchy. Real Anarchy would be infinitely better than this shit storm of a mess.

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).

Decentralized governance sounds safer

Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think.  They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic. 

You beat me to it.   People who believe in governments seem to believe that they are the way to a utopian system.   And they continue to beg and plead with the government and keep hoping that "we just need someone good to get in".

obviously i'm not one of those people who think centralized government works. we are doomed either way, and no anarchy is going to save us.

Here's a thought concerning the concepts of "utopia" and "idealism":

Anarchy often gets dismissed as being an "idealistic utopia", usually followed by the espousal of the speakers opinion on human nature (usually crooked) and how it has no chance of working out, "because humans are xy".

Yet many people criticizing anarchy in this way hold the firm belief, that it is possible to create a central government, which will be benevolent in its actions, populated by people of good-will, working towards the greatest good for the greatest number, while resisting the temptation to abuse their positions of power and/or steal from the big pile of resources the government has accumulated...EVEN THOUGH all this has been tried countless times in many forms all around the world and it has failed over and over again.

Now if that's not belief in an idealistic utopia, I don't know what is.

Best reason ever for buying a Bitcoin.

It won't be "utopian" in the least. There will still be social and economic conflicts, still be poor and hungry people, still be issues with crime, and still many of the same problems we have today. The biggest difference is that everyone will have to be responsible for themselves, and everyone will have a much wider choice of things to be responsible with, since services typically provided by government will likely be different when provided privately, and you'll have more options to choose from. There will also be way less waste of resources, since organizations that are not efficient will be forced to shut down, instead of continued to be supported with tax dollars "for the greater good," and change and new developments will be much more rapid due to fewer restrictions.

As for those people in power, combine the anonymity of bitcoin with assassination markets, where the more someone hurts people, the higher the bounty on their head grows (funded by completely anonymous donors), and you'll see people like that learn to behave very quickly.

Finally, it doesn't have to be a global thing that applies to all 7 billion people. We can still have countries "ruled" by anarchy alongside countries like North Korea. The difference will be that North Korea type countries will be rapidly falling appart, while the anarchy countries will be the richest and best defended (privately, and efficiently) in the world.

Don't forget, wars are extremely expensive, completely unprofitable, and require those waging war to be able to steal money to support said war. On the other hand, resistance (such as guerila warfare) is typically voluntary, is cheap, and is driven more by ideology and wish to preserve one's way of life, which has a higher incentive than war does. That's why USA is spending billions in Afghanistan, and getting nowhere.
If we had some sort of a financial system that allowed people to hold their wealth in private and in secret, maybe even having it password protected so that those in power who wage war can't seize it either as a tax or as a spoil of war, then wars likely won't happen often, if at all. Sure, there will be squables over land or territory, but even those are typically way more expensive than diplomacy and business negotiations.