Topic: How evil is Bitcoin ? - page 3. (Read 14965 times)

And I would consider shoplifting to be a form of theft.

I have to agree with theymos.  Personnaly I think sesessionism is the only way to solve this.  If minority can't accept to obey to majority, then there has to be separation, or war.

Fair enough for me.
In today's common society you must obey the law and its rulers however wrong they are, but I love to spread anarchy with little things free hugs downtown, free food to the homeless, finding ways to get stuff for free (dumpster diving, shoplifting) and most of all showing others they can do the same.

Any kind of democracy, "consensus decision-making", or any type of government entails some group of people forcing their will on some other group of people. They all violate property rights and are therefore immoral.

I also don't believe in consensus decision-making.

Rather, voluntarism is the driving principle of my life. I don't need your permission, but all I need not to do is not act out of violence or aggressions against others.

Some anarchists (usually social anarchists) have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues. The Young Communist League, USA in particular refers to representative democracy as "bourgeois democracy," implying that they see direct democracy as "true democracy."

I do not trust them at all, or anybody, or even myself. That is why I am an anarchist.

WHAT THE FUCK True democracy is one person one vote. I hope you mean representative democracy.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

nuff said

Yes, the Nazis were terrifying as well. For that reason alone, I distrust democracies.

But Lord Acton said it best, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The American were privileged to have George Washington, who gave up his power.

(For the record, I am heavily influenced by my history professor's lecture on the French revolution)

Yes, there was anarchy; but it was a short lived, and particularly hostile, form of national anarchy.  Which led to France being taken over by a short dictator for a while.  We always think of the German Nazis as the worst example of collective madness, but the Germans still don't have anything on the French.

That was one of the examples that I was thinking of.  In the modern world, the only definitive examples of limited government emerging out of anarchy that I can think of are the United States after the Constitution was ratified (i.e. the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy that any nation could have maintained, and the framers had already determined that the Articles would lead to an early break-up of the Union, which is why the Constitution was promoted to begin with) and the Swiss.

Amen. The French Revolution. Why the French celebrate it again?

Not because the French did any sort of anarchy(They did not) but because it's a revolution that gone completely bunker.

I am amused by this debate.  However well entertained I may be, there is no political ideology that reflects upon Bitcoin or vice versa.  There are likely to be some political structures that are encouraged, and other discouraged, by the widespread use of Bitcoin; but Bitcoin itself is neither good nor evil.  It is simply a modern tool of commerce.  The intent is not in it's design, but in it's users.

That said, any debate about the relative merits of ideologies is futile, as participants are (almost certainly) not using the same definitions.

And there is a difference between Capitalism (an economic ideology) and capitalism (an economic term that generally describes a set of economic laws operating in smooth conjuction without outside influences).  IMHO, Anarcho-Capitalism is as unlikely a long term possibility as is Anarcho-Socialism, and Anarcho-capitalism is just anarchy in it's natural state, and just as short lived.  I am not an anarchist of any flavor; because even though I can accept that a large minority of the population could thrive without any government beyond self-government and self-disipline, there will always be another minority of the population that craves and clamors for a perception of order in an otherwise (apparently) disorderly world.  In every case wherein anarchy became dominate, there were always those who would choose to take advantage of (or sow) disorder for personal gains, which would lead to the public clamoring for a more authoritarian government.  The case of anarchy leading to a peaceful, lasting social contract with limited governance is exceedingly rare.  So you young ones should temper your enthusiasm, for I have lived long enough to know that 'abolish and replace' of government is a risky endeavor.

Bitcoin is a free market currency, not controlled by some annoying union in a factory.

And I do not like other people telling me that some capitalist is exploiting my labor. Butt out.

Well I just don't like capitalism as it exploits people.
If there could be a system where you make all the fish you can store them in a community store house and with that you can take as much bread wine and salt as you want because you did your job.
If certain people try to beat the system and take more give non then the rest of the community will say your on your own no more fish for you unless you make your share of bread.
BitCoin shows that we don't need money in the sense of a piece of paper that some big man printed and decided the value but that we the people control it like a union should control a factory.

I consider the goal of socialism to be incompatible with my individualist worldview.

I am not opposed to community, having social relations, charities, and things like that.

I'll organize a society of mutual friendship and mutual help as much as I'll organize venture for personal wealth.

Not all forms of socialism reject money. Remember socialism is a set of goals, not a set of policies (whether you think this goals are important or possible is another matter).

Btw, Rothbard convinced the communist party of the USA to include the gold standard in their program

I think you are very wrong.  Bitcoin is certainly not a way to abolish money.  Rather, it is a ultra-modern form of money.  It is about as communist as gold can be.  And I doubt gold is a communist money.

Don't confuse capitalism with banking system.  Basically capitalism is the right of ownership.  Bitcoin is a money that is way more difficult to steal than other forms of money.  It is therefore not socialist.  At all.

In my opinion capitalism is the most natural law after anarchism.

When you agree that anything people find or create should be their property unless superseded by a contract or existing ownership, then capitalism necessarily follows.

If you leave off the last part and just say anything people find or create should be their property, you have anarchism: in essence, it is saying, whatever you have is yours until someone else takes it; then it is theirs.

Bitcoin is specifically designed so that users don't have to trust or even know each other so I don't know what you are meaning by that.