Bitcoin Forum

I am curious to see how this forum is politically.

Nutcase ideas attract nuts?


But I believe we are the 1% nutcase who are actually right.  8)

I'm just an old fashioned kind of libertarian.

I'm the "uninformed type of person" that tries hard to stay that way by trying hard to make my own mind using my own ideas. I may very well be any of the options, but I don't really know any of them all that well, and many I heard about in this forum for the first time!

"ignorance is bliss"

Heavy Capitalist With a good chuck of lefties not many in the middle it will be a clear divide.

First they label you then they co-opt you - see Glenn Beck calling himself "libertarian" or Sarah Palin claiming to represent the "tea party". Ive even seen politicians calling themselves anarchists lol.

 :)

You forgot "Agorist" btw.

i could argue left-libertarian and agorist are the same. well rather agorist is a subset of left-libertarian

definitely a subset, you can be a right libertarian agorist.  I consider myself a libertarian, currently I'm most concerned with online privacy and monetary reform, hence my interest in this project.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agorism:

I started the BMAA, but I would consider myself an anarcho-capitalist.

In reality, I don't really have any favor for the two flavors of capitalistic anarchism.

Baptist Missionary Association of America? (thats what google gives me)

The Bitcoin Mutual Aid Association.

Oh, i just joined today. cool

I label myself an egoist / anarcho-egoist / Max Stirner guy (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Egoist_anarchism). Not to confuse with Ayn Rand's ethical egoism, which says that people ought to do what is in their self-interest. I claim that people can only act in their own self-interest.

Basically I'm close to anarcho-capitalists/agorists except that I completely reject morality, law and the existence of rights. If I have the power to do something and it's in my self-interest to do it, then I'll do it. Kind of a "law of the jungle" approach to society.

What I like about Stefan Molyneux's work is that he demonstrates that there's little if any difference between the "law of the jungle" and "morality". In the long run, the things that are in your best interest to do, are moral.

The conflict does not exist. The confusion arises because we sometimes mix up "moral" and "things that other people tell you to do, claiming that they are moral".

Apolitical, not big on ideology, more of a practical, "whatever works" type of person.

But I probably pass the duck test for a centre-left-libertarian.

I believe that a functioning society needs a balance of collectivism/cooperation/solidarity and selfishness/competition/individualism. However, I believe that collectivism can and should be strictly voluntary.  

I'm too cynical to believe that true anarchy is sustainable. Humans are a very hierarchial species by nature, and some thug will always dominate unfortunately; that thug may as well be democratic government (the least of all evils). That government should be as small and as accountable as possible.  Utilitarian, "harm-reduction" based government interference should be minimised; if it can be justified at all it must be based on reason and empirical evidence.

Hmm. In Russia the socialists is opposed to liberals/democrats...

Grading is as follows:

Anarchist/Left
Socialist/"Left"
Conservative
Liberal/Democrat
Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian
Minarchist Libertarian

Government, as everyone uses the word, always means force. Using force to solve problems is never rational.

The correct balance between collectivism and individualism cannot be known be anyone let alone forced on people. Anarchism just means letting this balance emerge naturally. If the government evaporates, most of my life with still be collective. I will still share everything with my family and work their needs into all of my decisions.

I call myself an anarcho-capitalist because I think this will be the large scale structure of a free world. But nearly all of my personal interactions will have nothing to do with acquiring capital.

I chose left-libertarian, but I'm thinking I'm really an anarcho-capitalist in practice. My understanding (incorrect perhaps?) is that they're basically the same thing, except that left-libertarians actively pursue counter-economics as their strategy for achieving anarchism. Am I confusing this with agorism?

Maybe I'll just say I'm a voluntaryist and leave it at that. I don't particularly like the term "anarcho-capitalist" because it emphasizes capitalism, whereas I believe any voluntary interaction is moral, capitalistic or not (although I believe that in voluntaryism, 95% of economic behavior would be anarcho-capitalism, but my point is that it doesn't have to be, so emphasis on "voluntary" as being the overarching guide for society).

Take Linux for example. That's the ultimate example of voluntaryism. It's NOT socialism like what some people claim, because there's no force or violence involved. It's also not typically the type of thing that people think of as capitalism, even though it is strongly related due to its decentralized nature.

Voluntaryist out.

I agreed with this assessment. I think in the end, we're voluntaryists at heart.

I like anarcho-capitalism, but I don't believe in anarchy, for I can't ignore the paradoxical idea of forbidding the use of force without using force.  And to me, "no rule" is still a rule.

I could consider myself as a minarchist, since I think the state should not care about economy, and that it should only focus on the monopole of force.

I'm considering objectivism and individualism.  But it's kind of new for me, I still have to think it through.

Once you have thought it through, you sound like you might be an agorist.

Sounds like it.  An agorist is a 'revolutionary' libertarian who uses counter economics to undermine the government by starving it of it's sources of support, but largely without initiating violence.

I don't know how Anarchists expect their ideal societies to function without at least a minimal stable governing body enforcing property rights or lack of thereof. I'm a minarchist mainly because I believe liberty has to be enforced.

Yes, it does sound hard to enforce property rights in an anarchy.

But, bitcoin is an economy that functions without central banks.

So, I have some hope that we can function without a coercive state apparatus.

I think that distributing the power to enforce property rights among everyone is better than giving that power to government and relying on them to take care of you. First, because the government does not care about your property as much as you do, so they will only do the minimal effort required to make people think that they are competent. Second, because since they hold a monopoly on force they can take away your property at will and there's nothing anybody can do about it. Basically (as it currently works) the government is the real owner of your property and it is just leasing it to you, until you do something that they don't like.

In my ideal society, everyone has the power of being police and judge, so keeping control of your property should be way easier. If say a couple of guys get in my house to burglarize, instead of calling the police and hope they come within the hour I'll call my neighbors because I know for a fact that they'll come immediately, not because we are friends but because it is in their self-interest to do so. Not coming to help would send the message that it is ok to come and steal from this neighborhood, and when thieves come to their house they won't have my help. So they'll come and they'll help me kill the burglars to send the exact opposite message: "You come to steal in this neighborhood, you die". This makes it safer than relying in police because in this setting the cost of stealing a piece of property is greater than the profit you can obtain from it, so no one with half a brain will try it.

How can your ideal society possibly be stable though? What's preventing these people from forming coercive bodies that spawned the governments we have today?

In your ideal society you would soon realize how ineffective it is to sollicitate your direct neighbors for security.  You'll realise it's better to hire some people just for this task.  They would get some special training and, unlike your neighbors, they would be ready to act 24/7.  You'll give them some guns and a uniform.  And finally you'll call them "police".   Only difference with the current police, would be that your police would be a private organisation, founded by your neighborhood, in your neigborhood's interest.

However, another group decides to create a competing police force and they start killing and harming your police force's clientele, thereby putting them at a risk of failure. How do you deal with this situation? You see, this is why I don't like Anarcho-Capitalism either.

Anarchy doesn't mean "no rules" to me at all, but only "no rulers" or really "I rule myself". If the state dissolves I'm still not going to cheat at chess or act rudely in the supermarket.

If a group has a monopoly on force it doesn't matter that you don't want them messing about in the economy. They will still be people (a special subset of people who want physical control over you) who will do what they please in the economy. Maybe a better way to think of it is that there is no "economy" only people's bodies and that is what a monopoly of force allows them to control. Essentially control of the economy is a subset of a monopoly on force, not a separate thing.

I voted Socialist (last few elections I voted the socialist party) although I like many of the communist ideologies as well (although they only work in an ideal world). IMHO the state should represent its people and take care of them. To bad our new government is right-winged and hopefully that will end soon.

But nobody says the use of force should be forbidden. Only the initiation of force against innocents should be.

There is no difference between the majority and minority representation in government.

In the end, they PLUNDER.

Do you want rich people to plunder, or the regular poor people to plunder? That is the state.

You see this is one more reason I like voluntaryism. U want to love in a communist society? Then find like minded people and do it. Just so long as I'm free to disagree and live the way I want to live. Nothing wrong with socialism provided that its voluntary. Insurance, for example, is a form of voluntary socialism to an extent.

In transparent governments you should be able to track where money goes to. And here in the Netherlands we have relatively many ways to find these things out. If something isn't right, you can start asking questions. If money is spend wrongly you often see politicians turn their words in strange ways (and you know that they are wrong). Often not much happens, but it will get major media coverage. One recent example:
A minister had to fly back from her holiday in Italy because of a situation that was discovered by the House of Representatives and she had to explain it and answer questions. She took a private flight back (costs: around 10.000 euro's, normal flight would have cost a few 100 euro's) and send the bill for a refund to the ministry. The media found out and in the end she had to make apologies and pay the flight herself.

I think taxes aren't a bad thing, as long as they are spend again in a sane and good fashion, so that the whole society has profit of it.

Everybody with half a brains know that the elderly had plundered the young with social security.

That is the fatal flaw of democracy. Nobody have the discipline to simply not vote themselves money.

You might be someone who can take care of himself right well. I've seen a lot of people who can't, sometimes they didn't choose for that, sometimes they made wrong choices or were ignorant. I think as a society you have the responsibility to take care of these people, else you fail as a humane society (a US friend of my wife got homeless recently (and as far as I could judge this wasn't their fault) and all the organisations that could help them, are very bureaucratic and often don't have the funds to help). Some people might not agree with your idea's, but if you have more people agree with you you can make them happen, that's democracy.

Money isn't everything... you want good roads, public healthcare, good education, subsidy to start your own company, grants to do research (generate knowledge), good/reliable public transport, etc., etc.? That's worth something, right?

How I feel about democracy:

http://imgur.com/nh2Qy.jpg

I am willing to bet none of that would of be possible without the creation of currency. That's the most oxymoronic phrase I have ever read.

Hehe. That's only a 2 party system you describe (we have more parties). How about this one:

Democracy is a dictatorship of the people.
My point is that money isn't a goal (for self-enrichment), but a thing to achieve the things I mentioned (to improve society as a whole you have to contribute to it and participate in it).

I see. My apologies.

Here in Europe people are not so distrusting towards their governments as compared to the USA, because if you don't like how the current government is performing you choose a different party (or start your own, yes, that IS possible). Also ties with governmental agencies are short and the parliament can intervene if they aren't working as they should be.

All of which are provided by plunder of individuals and are of... questionable quality.

The US have lot of public roads. GAZILLION miles of roads. Our infrastructure are falling apart because we can't maintain the GAZILLION or roads. Plus we get car accidents and traffic congestion.

We get snotty city planners that think it is fine to zone area into RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, and INDUSTRY as if it were sim city. The result is suburban sprawl.

Incentives matter, BioMike. A lot.

We have the same problems (car accidents and traffic jams), just not so many roads. The problem seems to me 2 fold:

1) Not enough money goes to maintaining the roads or to many roads (the usa is too small to maintain all those roads).
2) Incompetent people doing the planning (and probably paid to much for their work).

Here the government has to go through some levels of government layers before they can actually put down the road.
This takes a lot of time to get these things done, not only the different layers of government can be problematic, they
also have to take care of activist groups, buying up the land where they want to put down the road (if the owner refuses
it has to go through court). Because it is so difficult to put down a road, other ways to solve the problems (often traffic jams)
are often much easier. Some road projects can take up more than 10 years before they can start constructing (if it isn't cancelled
by then).

One question though, do you pay tax for owning and using a car in the USA? How heavy is fuel taxed? (Looking at wikipedia we have the highest fuel tax (50 - 60%), USA hardly any tax). Which comes down to the point what I'm trying to make, everybody wants good quality roads, but doesn't want to pay for it, result: nothing happens and roads start to deteriorate, increasing costs to fix them even more.

Not only is the road system problematic under the statist control, in order to make it supposedly effective the fed has to steal even more of my labor. You say there is demand for good quality roads? Then why not let the free market handle it in the first place. Problem solved and the government doesn't have to money from me at gun point. :O Also, the government has no incentive to be efficient due to the lack of profit incentive. Road costs could be a lot cheaper under a private system.

Private roads have been made the past, they can still exist today. Businesses want customers to access their storefronts easily so naturally roads will come about. Scew the government monopoly. Give the power to the people.

Sure, I was thinking how poorer people would fend off attacks. Richer communities and businesses would get trained guards and fit them helmets, kevlar vests and M16s to keep high the ratio of cost from stealing vs profit from stealing.


It is in the best interest of everyone that no single group rises in power above the rest so I think that people would band together against this single entity and take it out before it rises too much in power and becomes a new government. In your example, everyone would see the danger in letting the rogue police force get away with killing those people so the defending police company would band itself with other companies and destroy the rogue one. Basically by initiating aggression without a legit reason you would be painting a big red target on your back.

No, no, no. It's not about that even.

The government have no incentives to provide quality roads and no incentive to hire competent planners.

I have the same tattoo on my chest

There's certainly a lot of overlap, but I look at the difference like this: Left-libertarianism is a bunch of values which seek expression. Agorism is a revolutionary strategy for realizing at least some of those values.

They are worth *something*. Different somethings, to different people. The question is who sets the value? The state model dictates that the state -- and, by extension, whatever groups control the state, most often not really a democratic electorate -- decides the relative values of each, and what items shall be valued and what not.

I personally assign zero value to a "subsidy" to start one's own company, if that means a state subsidy. Why should someone establishing a "company" to employ multiple people be privileged over sole traders?

Someone with their own car might assign a high value to good roads, but zero value to public transport. Why should people who never ride the bus pay for the bus?

Neither of those preferences can be respected or satisfied under a one-size-fits-all state system of provision via taxation. And taxation is theft, backed up by the threat of murder.

What would happen if there was NO public transport at all? The current amount of traffic jams would be nothing, costs for maintaining your good roads would go up (more traffic on the road), fuel prices would go up (more demand for fuel). While not direct, you will still be profiting from the fact that people make use of public transport.
My bus this morning was transporting about average 60 people, most cars that I see in the morning have only 1 person in there. Let's say that this one bus would save 50 cars on the road (all going in the same direction)... and this is only one bus.

http://www.flinc.org/world/pages/product

Why would public transport disappear?

A bus is more fuel efficient and should benefit from the economy of scale.

There would be more train tracks. Trucks are used for local transport of material instead.

I'm an anarcho-capitalist left-Rothbardian, which so I also consider myself a left-libertarian.

This depends largely on population density and geography.  A bus or subway train are incredibly wasteful and inefficient, if ridership is low.

It should, and it would in the absence of the massive federal subsidies that the US government provides to public transit.  Taxes paid for most major commercial airports and nearly all of their security.  Without those roundabout forms of subsidies, aviation would still be a rare mode of travel as it was in the 1930's.  Pam Am got it's start as a covert pacific theater operation prior to WWII, using military pilots flying commercial aircraft as cover for the movement of US personnel & air recon of the Japanese fleets.  The US airline industry is to the US military today what the interstate system was to prior generations, and what the roads were to the Roman Empire; it provides cover of movement with commerce while providing a means of rapid deployment in the event of invasion.

I'm a Voluntaryist.  But I'll vote 'Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian' as it is close enough for me.

Being pragmatic, I do prefer the term 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' to describe my economic views.
I think that this poll illustrates, again, the importance to separate moral and economic labels.

Voluntaryism is a moral code, it just so-happens that 'Laissez-faire Capitalism' is the only rational economic model for a society of voluntarists!

I like voluntaryist too.

The road system is easy. Without government we may already have personal flying cars like the jetsons. Then all the roads could be used for something more productive.

You see the roads the government has built but you dont see the opportunity cost of all the policies that maintains the monopoly.

The seen and the unseen is something you always have to weigh up when dealing with these issues.

Look like we got a supermajority of libertarians, and then the libertarians are composed mostly of anarchists.

There is a group of private individuals near where I live who have proposed to build a fairly long bridge (about 5 miles long... not a single span of that length but it will cross about that far in relatively shallow water) and to have that bridge paid for completely with private funds.  The proposed route happens to cross a fairly large lake (380 km^2) that happens to have a major urban area immediately adjacent to it with a large and growing population on the other side of the lake.

What is interesting here is that this group is basically offering to run this bridge as a completely for-profit private enterprise where this company would be entirely responsible for maintenance and operation of the bridge.  All they are asking for is to set up toll booths to pay for the bridge.  It happens to be in a state where until now there are no toll roads are found and all highways are public (with a few other minor exceptions, but access to those roads is without a toll).  The debate right now is to see if the state is even going to let the thing happen, as the lake itself is considered "state owned property".  The land needed to connect the bridge to state highways that isn't underwater is already purchased and owned by this company, including potentially a route straight to an interstate highway interchange that could be upgraded to expressway standards and several thousand cars per hour for traffic.

As for another perhaps even more concrete example of transportation infrastructure being paid for with private funds, the Las Vegas Monorail (http://www.lvmonorail.com/) is interesting as it is a completely privately financed mass transit system where the operations of the line are paid for through fares and advertising alone.  To the best of my knowledge they aren't getting any federal mass transit subsidies and I could be mistaken, but I do know that no state or local taxes are being used to pay for the system.

Private transportation systems can work if allowed, which I guess is my point here including these examples.  The government doesn't have to do everything for you and you would be really surprised what "government services" can be performed by private organizations if they are but allowed.  I can't think of any sort of government service of any kind at all including military protection and police services that aren't being done by private organizations outside of the direct control of a government agency.

Anarchist, but I wouldn't describe myself as an ancap or a leftist.

Well, are you ok with people working for a  salary instead of a share of the benefits of the company they work for ?

If you are, then you're ancap.  Otherwise, you're leftist.

A salary is a share of the benefits that the company produces, based upon the demand and the worth of the work done. It is just taken in the long-run, not the short.

I'm sorry but no, it is not.

Salary is not a share of the benefits.  Benefits are what's left once salaries and other expenses have been paid.

Salary is a previously agreed amount of money that is paid to an employee in exchange for his work.  It is the same whatever is the financial situation of the company, whether it is in deficit or in benefit.

Somebody needs to pay the salary, that (in the long run), comes from the benefits that the company provides. A salary is just an abstraction of risk, the investors and shareholders take the risk, the salary is paid regardless.  So in the long run, the salary come from the benefits of the company, (or the expected benefits), however has lower potential return, lower risk.

People who work on commission share the benefits also, however they take more risk, therefore have higher potential income, and higher potential losses.

Both share in the benefits, however the those on commission take more, as they take more risk.  The person who is on a salary takes the benefit of having a job at all, at the risk of loosing it.

You confuse *benefit* and *income*.

And even so, salaries are *part* of the income of the company, they are not *shares*.

People working on commission receive a part of sales, not benefits.  An employee can receive a huge commission even if its employer has made no benefits.

Again, benefits are whatever has been earned, minus whatever has been spent.  Salaries, commissions and things like that, are expenses.

Some companies can pay in shares, if you ask for it.  With a public company, one can always take your salary and invest it into the company he or she works for.  A private company, it will always be up to the owners to decide how they compensate those who the get help it.

Overall it is all about risk. The investors take lots of risks (capital), so they need to be compensated.  An employee takes much less risk, so gets paid accordingly.

Shares are property.  You can give some to employees only if there are shareholders who agree to give part of their property.  In the same way, a employee can buy shares only if they are people who agree to sell.

Wages and capital are not equivalent, realy.

Free market left libertarian.

No offense but, what does that mean ?  How can you be in favor of free market and claim being "left" ?

Agorism is left-libertarianism.
Roderick Long is left-libertarianism (http://aaeblog.com/)
There is even free market socialism, called mutualism, in the tradition of Proudhon and Tucker.

What is the problem with calling myself a free market left libertarian?

I don't know exactly what you mean by "left", but to me it means "communism", or "socialism".  It is very much incompatible with free market.

So to me, "free market socialism" is an oxymore.  I guess I'll have to read about that.

It's only socialism if you are forced to do it.

Most anarcho-capitalists, in their private life, are quite socially-aware and always happy to help out someone deserving who is less fortunate than they are.

I think I had the discussion in this forum again, but...

Socialism really is not a system. Is a set of promises or desires, but not a set of policies to acomplish those promises (which is very convenient, I know). This promises are equality and having the basic needs covered (food, housing, etc...).

Then there are different systems or proposals to get to those objectives, communism being the most famous, but we all know how it ended. But there are others. In fact, socialist Proudhon was one of the biggest critics of Marx. And developing the ideas of Proudhon, people like Benjamin Tucker or Lysander Spooner would take mutualism to the next level. Now Kevin Karson (which I highly recommend reading) is taking this ideas forward with heavy use of Austrian economics.

This people believe that the free market will bring society as closer as it can get to their ideal of equality. I honestly dont think that peacefully looking for equality is a bad thing. I instinctively dont like to see people having a lot while other people starve. I understand that using the excuse of inequality to gain power and violently impose rules is bad and even against equality itself. But I dont see nothing wrong on working towards a more equal world under free market rules.

I have stopped calling myself a capitalist, because its too loaded, and I wont call myself a socialist for the same reason. I call myself a free marketeer, and since I come from a lefty family I consider myself left-leaning (meaning the core of social values usually related with the left pro-gays, sexually, etc..., but would not like them imposed trough government).

That is why I call myself a free market left-libertarian, or if you want a left leaning free marketeer.

Anarcho-pluralism. Meaning that a stateless society will result in thousands of communities organized as they see fit at a local level. Under such circumstances a left anarchist community could peacefully coexist adjacent to an ancap one. Because I don't wish to impose any form of governance on anyone, I advocate for eliminating the state while strengthening competing institutions at the local level whether they be left or right.

My personal preferences: Among my people, the most likely form of non coercive governance would come in the form of our decentralized clan system. Clans (20-200 people) have historically been the holders of property and resources. Think of the typical western nuclear family and the way it shares food and other resources. My people extend this concept to extended relatives. It has been a very effective way to address the "Tragedy of the Commons." My tribe, the Tlingit, of SE Alaska, had clan ownership over territorial fishing grounds. Clan members were permitted to fish these waters with no limit restrictions. Yet they would dismantle their fish traps and not over fish for personal gain because to do so would threaten the well being of their family. We have what I call a multi-generational clan consciousness, and refrain from doing things that would damage the clan today, or damage the clan 4 generations down the road. This has been the feature of our cultural that has allowed us to survive unbelievable hardships over the past 500 years.

While this might sound like a restriction on liberty and freedom for some here, one must remember that such concepts are derived from cultural context. Concepts of property rights didn't just fall from the sky (like from god, as some claim.) Furthermore, the decentralized clan system I reference allows for private property, entrepreneurship, capital accumulation, etc, so long as it doesn't threaten the clan. If any individual doesn't like this, they could always move to Ancapistan, which will hopefully have a presence in every region of the world.

You have just described a 'phyle' system.

I am somewhat of a left libertarian too.

I'm similar to an authoritarian leftist in how I would prefer society to be organised.

The difference is the means of achieving that goal.

I would prefer society to be more cooperative, economically equal, and tolerant of lifestyle choices. I do not believe the way to get there is coercion, but persuasion and reward.

Ok I understand now, but a political system is not a philosophy.

Politics is all about making decisions, including those implying the use of coercion.  Therefore, I doubt it makes any sense to claim being both socialist and libertarian.  Socialism is about forbidding free market and private ownership.  Socialism can not be libertarian.

This is true enough, but a libertarian can be a socialist; just not a statist.  If the socialist order is non-coercive, any libertarian should be fine with it's existance, even if he doesn't agree that it's an ideal social order.  A fine example is a hippie co-op type farm, wherein adults not related to one another agree to live in a communal fashion.  History and reason both tell us that these adventures aren't sustainable, but that's irrelevant.  Another example is an 'intentional community', or even an extended family living together in the same household.  It's the idea that the social fabric of a happy homelife can be extended to the whole of society that drives the 'feeling' youth towards the socialist worldview.  Children who grow up in dysfunctional families are much less likely to fall for that crap.

I guess it depends on how you define it whether communes work.  There are a number of small religious communities that I think could fairly be associated with that sort of commune.  Notably the Hutterites, who live in colonies, mostly in western canada, and run huge farms communally.  The key is that for that sort of social relationship to work, people need to feel a stable social relationship with each individual in the group.  This is why the hutterite colonies never exceed about 250 people.  I'm sure there are various mennonite sects that have similar strategies.  Outside of the commune capitalism is the best way to go. This is the same as the way people deal with their close friends and family.

Hmmm

Objectivist, but without the chain smoking.

;-)