Topic: Wall Observer BTC/USD - Bitcoin price movement tracking & discussion - page 19529. (Read 26610019 times)

Again, you're dead wrong. cite your sources.
I'll cite mine: Socialism is a political ideology and movement[1] which has proposed a set of social and economic measures, policies[2] and systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production

Original research: Brought up in USSR. The second S is for "SOCIALIST."

---

So I hear you ladies like to Anarchism?

"Anarcha-feminism, also called anarchist feminism and anarcho-feminism, combines anarchism with feminism. It generally views patriarchy as a manifestation of involuntary coercive hierarchy that should be replaced by decentralized free association. Anarcha-feminists believe that the struggle against patriarchy is an essential part of class conflict and the anarchist struggle against the state. In essence, the philosophy sees anarchist struggle as a necessary component of feminist struggle and vice versa. L. Susan Brown claims that, "as anarchism is a political philosophy that opposes all relationships of power, it is inherently feminist.""

Only a minority of voters are socially intelligent, and I include you in that group and you know almost nothing about economics. So let's assume half the voters are socially responsible and half vote selfishly in their own special or short term interest. Let's also assume roughly half are smart and half are dumb. You have four voting groups: smart and good, smart and selfish, dumb and good, dumb and selfish.  How do you get a majority of beneficial election outcomes from that? 

Economically, the State is an engine for concentrating benefits and distributing costs. Reformers bear the full cost of reforms on themselves and when they are successful, the benefit is distributed to everybody. The end result is that most reformers go broke before meaningful reforms get implemented, but lobbyists for special interests get rich.  This is the same for every government everywhere. Governments concentrate benefits and distribute costs. it's what they do. it's not a bug, it's a feature.



My experience is that even poorly educated people can make good economic decisions much more often than elites such as yourself claim. The problem is that they are faced with perverse incentives such as working less to maintain welfare benefit eligibility.



You are locked in the statist paradigm. Maybe power shouldn't be concentrated in the minority OR the majority. Maybe power shouldn't be concentrated.  Such a society would still have poverty, crime, and violence, but it wouldn't be locked into some zero-sum winner-loser one-size-fits-all solution to every problem.  If you want to get out of a hole, the first thing you should do is stop digging. If you want a prosperous peaceful society, perhaps eliminating the wealth-consuming violence monolopoly in the middle of it is a good start.

Dictionary compilers cannot avoid having their political preferences... 


It is a very poor definition, because it looks at only one narrow issue (ownership and control of means of production), ignoring all the other aspects where socialism differs from the right-wing ideologies (capitalism, conservatism, neo-conservatism, whatever you call them), including those that I listed.  And that definition is quite wrong in that point, because socialism does not at all imply "social ownership of the means of the means of production".  Again, that is in fact the feature that defines communism, specifically, as an extreme type of socialism.  In fact, socialism does not imply democracy: nazism and fascism are standard examples of non-democratic socialist regimes, and that is the case of several countries today, including some monachies in the Middle East.  (So much so that the "social democrats" often feel the need to explicitly qualify themselves so.)

did you hear that everyone ?? the four punchmens are raiding.

yeah bitcoin you are checkmated! only thing u can do is either go up or down! which is it we're not messing around anymore .

looks short term oversold to me. beware of the fourth punch: the second bounce.

But that is actually an example of what I was referring to.  After a decade of fighting black rights movements, the white majority eventually decided to improve the right of minorities with anti-discrimination laws, equal opportunity and affirmative action, financial support, etc.. The same happened half a century before with labor disputes, that eventually resulted in the US having a surprisingly worker-friendly labor legislation.


Even knowing that one's own vote will not decide the election, a "socially intelligent" person will take the time to vote according to his desires; because democracy has a chance of working if, and only if, everybody does that.   (And that is why votes must be secret, and even the voter himself must be prevented to provide proof that he voted in a certain way: so that the election can measures the actual wishes of the citizens, without the distortions of peer pressure).

My experience is that even the poorly educated people can vote much better than the elites claim.  When democracy fails, it is often because it is not given a fair chance, or not used often enough.  (Here in Brazil the main Executive and Legislative posts are elected, but the Judiciary is totally self-selected and indepednent. As a result, while the first two branches barely work, and are highly corrupt, the latter does not work at all, and is totally corrupt...)


What matters in the Constitution are its articles . The reference to "self-evident rights" is only a pretense of justification for them, without any legal relevance -- because each one has his own opinion about what is "self-evident". 

While there are important differences in specific areas, the legal systems of most Western countries are pretty much the same pastiche of constituional articles, laws voted by elected representatives, laws enacted by public referendums, more or less arbitrary decrees of various authorities, judiciary precedents, etc.. There is very little space for "natural laws" or 'self-evident principles" in those legal systems, except in the nooks and gaps where the written laws don't quite reach.


That is true, but the alternative is, inevitably, domination of the majority by some minority.  Methinks that, by and large, the latter is much worse.

This descending triangle closes in few hours. Dumpage incoming

Coin


Explanation

as opposed to being decided by who has the best political connections or the most expensive lawyers?  



And the police aren't a gang?  I'm not proposing a utopia. Only a system that is less violent than one centered on a violence monopoly funded by theft.




repealing or nullifying the laws that oblige us to pay for wars we don't support would be a good start.


People have gotten lazy by allowing the state to do the due diligence for them and to protect them from bad actors.  I'm sure you know of many many cases where the State has failed to do just that, but it does give us a false sense of security.   Look, I can't tell you how a Stateless society will solve all social problems, because it's not a centrally planned community.  If I could give you all the answers you seek, then I would make a good central planner, but in truth NOBODY can be a good central planner because central planning doesn't work. It's F.A. Hayek's economic calculation problem.

I just know that an institution that is financially dependent on initiating or threatening violence to aquire revenue is in no position to enforce the laws that govern a just society.

But in that case the laws and contracts are useless, because the dispute will be decided by the expected costs and benefits of each action (e.g., the party with the machine guns gets his way), and not by any laws or contracts.


Today I learned a new name for "government": "Dispute Resolution Organization". 
 
I suppose that the difference is that there will be several DROs that the parties can choose from.  But suppose that they both agree on DRO A when they sign te contract, but when the dispute arises one party asks his buddies from DRO B to persuade the other party, while the latter brings his nuke-launching Abrams tank out of the cellar...   

Those multiple DROs sound very much like big city gangs...


That would be wonderful!  But does anyone have any idea on how we can get that rule to apply?


Well, I think that bitcoin will in the future be a textbook example of (among other things) why loss of reputation is hardly an effective deterrent.  See Josh Garza, Patrick Strateman, Zhou Tong, ...  While a scammer or defaulter may lose a fraction of his market, there will always be whose who take his side.  Why, even Danny "Neo&Bee" Brewster seems to still have friends in the community...

And, according to the P. T. Barnum Law, there is a sucker born every 12 seconds...

"In a higher phase of communist society, [...] after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; [...] only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!" --Marx
Socialism was presented as a transitional phase, Communism the ideal/logical outcome. A fairly murky distinction, depends on context and who you ask: Soviet Union was technically Communist and Socialist, Communist Party but CCCP -> USSR -> Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
Identical in Communism and Socialism.
Ditto. Hard for not_state to provide those services when the state owns the means of production.
That's already happening in Communism. Remember, with no landlords, someone has to provide housing.
Not sure where you're getting that. Source?
What you're describing is contemporary Capitalism, not Socialism. Socialism, as a minimum, is intrinsically consistent. What you're describing (privite ownership of the means of production") is difficult to reconcile with the Socialist ideal ("from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs").

That's what capitalism does. If you make a profit, it's because you utilized your capital in a way that society a.k.a. the market values.  You get market share by giving customers what they want. You make profits by doing so efficiently.



according to whom? Who gets to decide? Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner?



and the State gets the resources to do this how exactly? By running a bake sale? If a private organization takes things involuntarily, it's robbery. Just because the State calls it "taxation" doesn't mean it's any more moral. You can't delegate the the state the right to take things on your behalf if you don't have the individual right to do that in the first place.


http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/harrison.html



Free markets by definition are free from State interference.  Monopolies are only possible with state help. Cartels don't work, witness OPEC. 

living in one of the more Socialist Countries, point 1 is a little backwards, (it works just like more capitalist countries, the more you can extract from sociality the less you need to contribute.)  

in theory it should be more like:

each individual should be rewarded by pay to society in proportion to what he does for society, rather than by his possessions, descent, titles, intelligence, shrewdness, etc.;

Coin


Explanation

It is the dictionary definition of socialism in English.

If you want a different meaning, use a different word, or qualify your usage.


The above quote states control, not necessarily ownership. "Control or regulation" would also be an okay definition, but this seems redundant to me.

That is more like the definition of "communism".  

To me, socialism is more general term that contrasts to "capitalism", in the sense of bein more society-oriented rather than individual-oriented.  Among other things:

(1) each individual should be rewarded by society in proportion to what he does for society, rather than by his possestions, descent, titles, intelligence, shrewdness, etc.;  

(2) property and economical rights of the individual are not absolute but are subordinate to the interests of society as a whole,

(3) the state is supposed to provide public services like health care, education, social security, transportation infrastructure, emergency and security services, etc.;

(4) the state should try to ensure equal opportunities to everybody and ensure that everybody has a decent minimal living conditions.

Socialism definitely does not imply state ownership of the means of production; but it implies state regulation, e.g. to force companies who provide vital services like water or electricity to charge reasonable prices, respect quality standards, provide basic service even to unprofitable areas, etc..  It admits, but does not require, that such services be provided directly by the state, by civil servants or through state-owned companies.

Socialism implies protection of consumer rights and mandatory product quality and safety standards; but is quite compatible with free market economy.  In fact, as part of protecting consumer rights, socialism implies state intervention when needed to keep markets free, by preventing the formation of monopolies and cartels.

I believe the State claims to rule with the overwhelming consent of most of the governed, and it does. According to them, if you vote and your candidate loses, you still consent to be governed by the winner because in voting you implicitly consent to the rules of the game. They also claim that if you don't vote, you implicitly consent to be ruled by whoever wins because you didn't voice your objection. It's a nice little trap.



I do hold them to it because that's where they claim to get their legitimacy.  It's by their own stated standards that they lack that legitimacy.  It's why I feel no moral obligation to respect their rule. Having said that, I do not advocate breaking the law for the same reason I don't advocate trying to fight off an armed gang of attackers with a butter knife. It's not a moral issue. It's just a matter of pragmatism, but that doesn't mean I have to pretend it's right or stop looking for an opportunity to escape the situation or to find a way to fight back that has a reasonable probability of success.  

Anyway, the original point was that "anarchy" technically means "no rulers" not "no rules", but definitions are descriptive, not prescriptive, so what it technically means is useless in common speech, where it means "chaos". That's why I prefer to say I'm an advocate of distributed governance.  People still ask me what that means, but at least they start out knowing nothing about it rather than something that's wrong.

I've hardly even posted all day, today.... hehehehehehehe... assuming that part of that "creative" and "inspiring" post is referring to yours truly...