Bitcoin Forum

Atlas, we had a bit of a dialogue going on in your "Is Bitcoin Political" thread before it was shut down. I see some potential for a very interesting argument from the other side of the aisle here, so I thought I would see if you would be willing to have a discussion as opposed to a thread in which you defend straw men. I would like to discuss with you something we brought up in the previous thread: The role of government.

You have made it clear that you are at least some fashion of anarcho-capitalist. I won't claim to know all of your beliefs, nor will I claim to be able to summarize you in a single hyphenated phrase. What I would like to do though, is lay down some ground rules if you're willing to discuss this with me. First, I would like to see no hyperbole from either of us. This means the word "parasite" cannot be used unless you're referring to a literal parasite, such as a tapeworm. Secondly I would like to see you make an effort not to as if you are trying to create as many quotes as you can. It's annoying to read and you end up obfuscating your points behind attempted sound bites, which just means I need to spend more time asking for clarification.

Finally, I would like both of us to decide before hand if we are going to discuss the theoretical or the practical side of political theory. If we are discussing theoretical, then we can discuss societal contracts (or individual actions) in a state of nature, assuming rational actors, and with an established goal of society. If we want to discuss the practical implementation, which is frankly more relevant to this community, then we must assume that people are people, and are not rational. Any system of your choosing would have to be shown to be workable in the real world without gaping flaws that would be easily filled by any other existing system.

In the nature of a Socratic discussion -and seeing as you are usually the most vocal person with your beliefs on here- I would like to ask questions to which you respond. I will try and ask nothing with flowery wording or to which there is serious ambiguity.

Sound fair? You start enough threads about your ideology I doubt you'll mind putting your impute into another one. And this could benefit the entire community as any reasonable debate can. Everyone stands something to learn from all sides in any discussion.

Someone's got a MANCRUSH lol

I don't even see how that comment applies.

No hyperbole?  But that's my favorite!

 :D

All the beliefs of our beloved defenders of 'freedom' like Atlas have to hide in the realm of sound bites and rhetoric.  It is in the realm of practical social construction that all these romantic ideas lose their luster.  Freedom only goes a little ways before imposing on someone else's freedom.  Force exists, bad people exist; how do we want to protect ourselves from them?  Other nations exist that may bully us if we have no means of defending external threats, yet the standing army that we employ is a danger unto itself.  But all these questions require a great background in historical, political, social, moral, economic and other academic understanding - none of this interests the fly-by-night anarcho-capitalist.  They want something, they think they know how to get it, and become so wrapped up in their own rhetoric that they begin to believe it on faith.

In addition, Atlas now as so much vested interest in being this persona he's created that he could probably never back down from it publicly on this forum.  Those that can, of which Atlas may be if unable to 'prove you wrong' are those with true courage as they are willing to choose reality over their pride.

Nations don't need standing Armies.  In a free society Patriots will rise up to defend their freedoms with more tenaciousness than any Army can muster.

Now don't you dare Mancrush on me!

He who defines the rules of the debate and the meaning of terms wins.

Charlie Sheen ofcourse.

that might've worked when rifling a musket barrel was a new idea, but when i can have a cruise missile shove a tonne of high explosive up your ass from the comfort of my base on a different continent, it becomes decidedly less effective.

And who's to say each of said Patriots don't have their own cruise missile in the barn waiting to go?  You're conceptual pigeonholing of my statement is disconcerting.

Would you call any of my terms biased or unreasonable?

Even in an era with Nukes, Aircraft Carriers, satellites, unmanned drones and other high tech weaponry?

Don't bother.

Apparently for the libertarian dreamer even having definable terms is an admission of defeat.

You can try to get the two sides of the debate to agree on terminology.  They won't.  But you will discover that terminology itself is the actual debate... 


"Parasite" is an entirely legitimate term for the debate.  Each side may level the charge against the other side provided that they are drawing an analogy to biological parasitism to enhance their argument:

Wikipedia: Parasitism (Social Offense) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_%28social_offense%29)

Not quite. "Free Rider" is different from "Parasite".  "Free Rider" more closely corresponds to the biological relationship known as "Commensalism":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commensalism

Well, I would have to know what context the term free rider is being used.  For example, if we are talking about someone who happens to be born in, grew up, and is currently living within the boundaries of some geographic region being defended by some security force but is passively not funding that security force, then that could be considered a commensalist relationship, since one entity (the non-payer) may be receiving some benefit while the other entity (the security force) is not necessarily being harmed or benefited.  Supporters of the state might call that person to be a "Free Rider" and for him to be a "Problem".

Now, the literal term "Free Rider" actually comes from a situation where someone actively uses a transportation system that allows anyone to ride without paying any fare.  What happens is the buses/roads/subways become crowded and overburdened.  Then the managers of the transportation system can't bring in enough revenue to offset the costs of operation.  In that case (and assuming no other interactions for arguments sake), one entity is benefiting while another entity is incurring additional costs, so this "free rider" might be called a "parasite".  (But note that in this case, it is hard to equate this particular "free rider" with a "parasite" since the transportation system managers agreed and voluntarily permitted him to ride without paying.)

Anyway, this all goes back to my original point about the importance of defining terms and how it seems that these debates may essentially be fundamentally about the definition of crucial terms.

Actually what you're doing is called arguing semantics and I can't begin to fathom why morally absolutist terms that are corrosive to a discussion would be a good thing to allow in a debate when the neutral and technically correct term is always more preferrable. "Parasite" is, like it or not, hyperbole.

If parasite a forbidden, then please provide a technically equivalent term.  Free rider, as has been discussed before, doesn't quite cut it.

Free Rider actually works just fine. Just because you can take the term and put it in a literal context unrelated to the political science use and say "There, see! Now we must use Parasite." doesn't actually make your previous point valid.

Hmm,

It's true that both sides are going to want to capitalize on a lot of good-sounding terms: freedom, liberty, opportunity, choice, equity, equality, etc.  They believe that their philosophy furthers these better than all others and therefore they are going to try and have their ideology 'own' those terms.  "My philosophy promotes FREEDOM, your's doesn't, etc."  I think that this happens when they only see the interests of the certain parties that gain their sympathy and fail to see the opposing viewpoints justification in using those same terms.  Or they fail to see that these ideas are really means to an end, more so than actually ends in and of themselves, and therefore focus on the maximization of some of them at the complete dereliction of others in a fashion that actually lowers the overall 'net good' for the individual and the group.

It's a ideological or juvenile level of debate, in my opinion.  Total freedom for all equal social chaos and anarchy.  Total equality for all means a economic system with no incentive and a impossibility of a political structure as it is built on hierarchy.  But the real challenge is in trying to maximize all of these things for as many people as possible, and this will require 'trade-offs', let there be no doubt, but this is doorway into the chamber of moral philosophy and so far the 'debates' are still outside trying to 'own' and define terms.

Exactly, niemivh. Which is why like any good debater I defined the rules to use technically correct terms and not loaded ones. It's also why I argued asked Atlas in the other thread (which kicked off this one) to define the terms he was using as part of his rhetoric. Everyone has definitions of "freedom", and using sweeping rhetorical terms in a debate is childish at best.

The entire purpose of this thread was to ask one of the most vocal political posters on this forum to defend his political philosophy from some very basic questions without resorting to sweeping assumptions or generalizations. Not to say he is wrong, but to clarify and discuss. Instead I'm called out for trying to define the terms in my favor because I don't believe that "parasite" is an appropriate term in a debate.

The irony is that I don't think they know what they believe.  It's a loose construct of ambiguous disconnected beliefs wrapped in the provincialism that comes with being a US citizen. 

We are all on this forum due to being somewhat 'fringe' already and the amount of people that would qualify as those holding 'radical' opinions are in much higher concentration than the general populace.  Not that that's a bad thing, per se, I find the many people here much more intellectually stimulating than the cow-people that frequent my daily experience; but by the same token I sense that much of the knowledge of our little world here is encapsulated in an Alex Jones 'documentary' or Zeitgeist, etc, style Internet movie.  Hence, 'fringe'. These movies might be a good way to wake people out of their cow-like blissful tranquility but they also make people irrationally afraid.  And fear is nothing you can really do anything with.  It's a 'mind killer' as Frank Herbert wrote and therefore people coming from a position of fear are greatly paralyzed in their overall ability to navigate the world.

Back many years ago when I was an unread pup and was basing my world view on those style documentaries my views where radically different from what they are now; and, case-in-point remind me of beliefs I see posted all over this forum.  Actually just picking up large history books and reading exposes much of the garbage and nonsense that 'fringe' documentaries are exponents of, not to dismiss them entirely or the undeniable facts that they are presenting.  But facts are nothing without analysis and analysis is worth nothing without wisdom and historical understanding, it is more the analysis of the facts that these documentaries typically fail on.  But that's my analysis.

Expecting a discourse with someone like Atlas who's entire belief structure is derived from a bloated novel is not worth your time.  If you have questions for "Atlas" just consult the book Atlas Shrugged.

  ;)

I like how Atlas hasn't even responded to this thread.

Nobody should be afraid of a formal debate in a public setting. I can't begin to imagine why Atlas would make this the one thread he doesn't post in.

I'll bite, if Atlas is too busy or doesn't want to.  I consider myself a cautious voluntaryist/market anarchist/anarcho-capitalist/whatever adjective-noun combination you prefer.  However, there are some points in the philosophy I am not entirely convinced of yet and would like honest critiques of them that will help me more fully evaluate them.

I tend to think that once you get to a certain point the differences between anarchists and minarchists and even statists boil down mostly to differences in values. 

I am willing to debate as long as there is no hyperbole or ad hominem attacks.  Gilgamesh, you seem like a very logical individual and capable of rational debate.  Let's do it.  It will be good for both of us, and for the community. 

Sounds good. Would you rather debate purely theoretical or practical applications of the ideology? Given where you stand with some uncertainties, I think practical woul do more good, but I'll leave it up to you.

Also, since I only have Atlas's answer to this and it's pretty central, what do you believe the role of government with regards to it's citizens is?

lol @ trying to ban the word 'parasite' as hyperbole. Parasitism describes perfectly the method of survival of weak and unproductive people.

Pre-cisely.  Just like how people with "cash" in their nick use phrases like "Libertarianism is Just".  Do we mean that in the same sense some religious folk use the phrase "God is good"?  Meaning not that there is some external standard by which the characteristic has been judged to meet but that we have trivially defined the term to mean so.

Some responses I've got when asking people to define their terms...



...and of course our friend

I don't think my currently held beliefs are incompatible with "non-rational" people so I am fine with discussing the practical aspects of the ideology.  In fact, I cannot think of any anarcho-capitalist writers who preach that people are completely logical and rational and who push beliefs that require them to be so.  Ayn Rand's philosophy strikes me as requiring completely logical actors, but that is based off of a partial reading of Atlas Shrugged and little other context, so I could be wrong.  Neither was she an anarchist in any sense of the word.  She supported having a carefully circumscribed and limited government to enforce property rights and mete out justice. 

I shall try to define any questionable words I use for you, but also feel free to ask for clarification if you think that I might be using any words in ways you are unfamiliar with or you think violate the common usage of such words. 

Finally, before we begin I request that you be patient if I don't always respond right away.  As everyone else does, I have a life (and a job) outside of the Bitcoin forums, but also I don't currently have internet at my house so it's hard for me to reply right away sometimes.  :)

A few definitions to start with:

I shall use the terms  voluntaryist, market anarchist and anarcho-capitalist interchangeably for variety's sake.  They all refer to the extreme libertarian philosophy that no initiation of aggression is justified, and therefore government is illegitimate.  However, they differ from traditional anarchism in that they believe that man has a right to property and can own things.

Coerce:  1. to restrain or dominate by force  2. to compel to an act or choice 3. to achieve by force or threat

Aggression: 1. a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master 2. the practice of making attacks or encroachments; especially : unprovoked violation by one country of the territorial integrity of another 3.  hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration

The two preceeding definitions come from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary and are solid definitions that I find consistent with common speech in US English.  Let me know if you contest these definitions.

Note, that when I use the word "coercion" I will be using it in the first and third definitions almost exclusively.

Now, as to your question: What do I believe the role of government with regards to its citizens is?  The simple answer to that is, as a voluntaryist, I believe that government is illegitimate and therefore should play no role in society.

However, I am torn because I do believe that there could be a proper role for government in society, strictly limited and delineated, but that it is an unachievable and utopian ideal.

Kind of depends where you want to go from here.  My take:

If your "voluntaryist" ideal is the highest value you have (i.e. Even if voluntaryism meant a much more brutal and short life to everything you care about you would still hold that position) then there really are only two paths to argue.  One is to attempt to find contradiction and reduce the argument to a less absolute form.   The other prong would be to attack it on the grounds that any such belief is intrinsically irrational.   That is, any belief which cannot be falsified is irrational. 

If either you accept that you need to justify voluntaryism because it's not your highest ideal, that it's more correct in a less absolute form or that it must be falsifiable.  The voluntarism must be justified in terms you can agree with.

Seem reasonable?

In your view, which has more worth. Human life, or private property? Let's speak in general terms for this, as obviously "the life of your mother" would carry different weight.

Also, since we are moving at a slower pace, I might as well ask the question about roads now. How will roads be maintained in your anarchy-capitalist society?

Both of those are VERY general with a VERY wide range. I think the life of a professor with a PhD in sciences or mathematics, or a "captain of industry" type CEO who is employing thousands of people and providing service to thousands of customers, is worth a lot more than the life of a homeless drug addict. Likewise, the range is wide for property. I think there are cases where some life is worth more than some property, and some property is worth more than some life.

Yes, seems very reasonable.

I tend to advocate deontology over utilitarianism but I also think that my deontological principles are compatibile with utilitarianist principles and end up achieving the same goals.  I am relatively happy and content with my life now in a coercive system.  This may be because I encounter very little of this coercion on a personal level, but if voluntaryism created a horrendous world full of misery I would certainly renounce it.  I support voluntaryism because it appears to me that it is more moral than the current system and it will provide a better life for mankind in general.

Reminder that jggraham isn't me. I'm just ignoring other posters, I'm still reading what they write though. On that note, Rassah you gave a very good answer and just to clarify I would accept that one were you The Script. The reason I ask incredibly general questions is so I can explore The Script's political ideology without making assumptions about it. This means most of my questions will be open-ended instead of "Either A or B" type questions.

That's a hard question.  I think that human life is bound up in the concept of property.  As a human, if you cannot own property, starting with your own body, you cannot survive.  When I say "own" I use it in the economic sense of having control of and the capability of using for your purposes.  If I do not have control of my body and control of external resources (food, water, shelter) I cannot survive.  Without private property humans cannot survive.  


I think we should focus on one topic at a time, lest this thread splinter into too many topics and subtopics.  Let's get the general issues of property, human worth, etc. out of the way before we start looking at specific examples.

This is good.  I will be primarily responding to you in this thread, though I might also respond to others if I have time and it's of interest.

If you cannot survive without private property, then where does slavery lie? Children? Prisoners of war and criminals in jail?

I concur I am not Gilgamesh.  ;D  I was just poking my nose in. I will get back to you on your responses though.

Right, just look at the world's royal families.

Agreed, they are without a doubt the most gluttonous parasites.

Slaves and criminals are similar cases in that they are under the control of other human beings.  They are severely limited in their ability to homestead, purchase or trade private property, but not all their ability to manipulate property is taken away.   Once given their food it is their private property as they now have economic ownership of that food: they can eat it or trade it or destroy it.  This can be seen in the fact that slaves and prisoners do trade and exchange what little private property they are allowed, whether that be food, cigarettes, blankets, etc. 

In the extreme case of a prisoner who is so strictly controlled that he is not allowed to consume his own food but instead has it intravenously or force fed to him, perhaps it cannot be said that he has private property.  At this point man is reduced from a human existence to that of livestock, though he technically survives.

FTFY.    ;)

Also "parasite" presumes a level of knowledge that may either be infeasible or impossible to attain.  We can call the life-cycle of a virus "parasitic" because we have studied it until it's end.  However one looking at a symbiotic relationship might easily classify it the same way because the benefits of these relationships can be very long term.   Likewise while you might be able to make probabilistic projections about the average "drug addict".  However you can't actually call the relationship that person has to society as parasitic until it reaches it's end.

I understand here you're coming from, but what of people in a famine? They have no food to barter with, and often nothing of value to trade at all. Are they livestock? At that point they do have a choice still, but since we're arguing practical applications it's sorth pointing out that the choice to starve to death is hardly a choice. They don't even ave the means of entering into an economic agreement or getting themselves to that point.

I'm sorry, I don't quite understand what your question is or what point you are trying to make.  Are people in a famine livestock?  No.  Being deprived of food or possessions by a natural disaster is no one's fault, and is not controlled by humans.   Can you clarify?

Sure thing, sorry I muddled that a bit. You stated earlier that "if you cannot own property, you cannot survive". I stretched that to the very real situation in say, Somalia. People there own no property and are dying left and right. However, ownership of property isn't the primary issue there. Even for those with some kind of (usually non-monatery) wealth, the fact remains that there simply isn't food to be had. Perhaps someone in the position of being able to hire a transport delivery of food would be able to change that, but for most people simply having some form of economy isn't enough.

My livestock comment was related to this famine situation. In a starvation situation, someone has to either eat food given to them, or starve to death. In many ways, that person has just as much choice as a prisoner who is locked up and force-fed.

So, the point of that is simply this: How do you address a situation in which the basic needs of human life aren't available, even if someone has wealth?

My statement "without private property humans cannot survive" is rather axiomatic and a little semantic.  I'm simply saying that you have to have economic ownership of property (food, water, other resources) in order to survive.  It's the same as saying mankind cannot survive without eating and drinking, but I'm connecting this to the concept of property. 

Also, this statement is not reversible.  Without private property humans cannot survive is logically valid given the definition I've applied to property, but "with property humans can survive" is not necessarily valid.  You need specific types of property, namely food and water and shelter (the basics).  This is related to the bread/diamond paradox.  If a person is out in the middle of the desert with a pile of diamonds but no water, they are not going to survive long because they don't have the right kind of property.  I'm not trying to be sneaky here with my definitions, simply trying to show how I view private property as a fundamental necessity for human life.  The only given here is that I think that human life is good and that humans should attempt to survive.  If either of us truly disagreed with this we would not be here debating.  :)


Yes. I agree.  But the difference is that no crime has been committed against them by another human being, right?  Life and nature do not guarantee us anything, save only death.  No one really has a "right to life" because such a thing cannot be guaranteed.  I do believe that you have a right not to be murdered, but not to demand that others support you by the fruits of their labor.


I think you are saying that we need the State to make sure that people are taken care of in disaster situations such as famines, correct?  However, if that is the function that States fulfill, why do so many people die of hunger and starvation every year?  (I realize this is a complex problem.)

How would I address situations where people are starving?  I think there is much to be said about charity and human compassion and that it is a responsibility for people to look after each other, but I don't support using coercion to accomplish such goals.  I don't see that the State is necessary, and, often seems cause the opposite of the desired affects.

Except charity, applied to reality, is never enough to overcome a major disaster. In a multi-million person famine, the amount of food needed for those people to survive is well beyond what charity is capable of providing.

Let me accept your viewpoint about there being no natural right to life. What then makes a natural right to property? Does a starving person have less right to attempt to stay alive then a wealthy person does to stay wealthy at the expense of others? Are they equal?

Remember when New Orleans got flooded, how many companies sent trucks with food and water there? (WalMart, etc) Helping out during a disaster is a very good advertising and good will campaign move. Large companies with money to spare will likely jump on these opportunities.

I'm closer to a two-level utilitarian (but I generally eschew labels).  I don't even have much of a political label.  On occasion when someone wants one I say I'm a "rational empiricist".  Which I suppose is the reason I wouldn't take the label "Libertarian" since it doesn't yet meet the burden of proof I require.  However that doesn't stop me from voting Libertarian in the cases where that appeared to be the best choice.

So if you're deontological then can you describe to me which principles/duties you consider to be necessary?

A token in the larger effort, and New Orleans was never as bad off as, say, Somalia.

That's true, but in New Orleans you don't have heavily armed war lords roaming the countryside and taking whatever food is donated. That's a whole other problem that needs to be dealt with...

To be honest I think this is pure speculation.  I don't think you can prove this objectively just as I cannot prove the opposite objectively.  However, I would like to hear more explanation on why you think this is so.  Certainly the current system isn't providing for people's needs as well as it could--people still die of famine and starvation all over the world.  I happen to think that without the corruption and inefficiencies of government the situation would be better.  Let's discuss.


Rights are a tricky issue and I'm not sure I have an entirely cogent viewpoint yet.  If there is a God then it changes things as well as there might actually be "natural" or "God-given" rights.  I'm trying to cautiously develop a theory of rights without assuming a God, basing it solely on interaction with other people. 

So then, there is no "natural" right to life or property, i.e. you can lose your life or property to natural events outside of human control.  But you have a "right" to life and property with respect to other human beings, because you have a right to not be murdered and not be stolen from.  This assumes the given I stated a few posts earlier of considering general human survival as a good thing.


This is a good question.  To be consistent with what I've stated I have to say that a starving person has a right to stay alive as long as he doesn't steal or kill other people.  However, I can see why most people might not consider it wrong for a starving person to steal some bread from a rich man (Les Miserables situation).  It's the kind of situation where it is still morally wrong, but shame on the rich man for not being generous and helping out his fellow human being.  I don't think it's the State's place to steal from people to redistribute wealth, even in the above situation, but rather people's individual responsibilities to provide for each other.  Ultimately I hope to live (and help create) a world where situations like this seldom, if not ever, happen. 

I'm still thinking through all this so let me know if it makes sense or if I need to clarify.

To clarify, the Right to Life is a right to not have that life taken by force. It is essentially a property right. You own your self. Like any property, you can give it away, or discard it, but if it is taken, you (or in this case, your estate) are owed restitution. The amount of restitution owed for taking a life is a hotly debated topic.

I think that's what I said, sorry if it wasn't clear.  Also in a previous post:

What I stated about charity is highly provable, go look at the numbers it takes to overcome a major disaster such as Haiti, and go look at the amounts donated by charity.

As for stealing from the rich man to stay alive, how does this work when the rich man has his wealth tied up in banks, or goods which even if the starving person could steal them, aren't of any use in helping the starving person stay alive. Now assume there are millions of starving people. Which is more beneficial to the rich man: a small tax shared by everyone in his position, or a million people trying to rob him every day so they can afford basic food and water?

It's like Rassah pointed out, you don't see wandering warlords going around New Orleans stealing all the food that aid groups send. That warlord is a rich man. Not in wealth, but in goods. He has found a way to vastly improve his personal circumstances at the expense of a few.

More importantly, you cannot run an industry when millions around you are starving. Compare Norway to Somalia. In Norway, taxes are incredibly high with vast social safety nets for anyone who needs them. At the same time, purchasing power per capita is one of the highest in the world. In Soalia, those with great wealth need to spend large chunks of it to defend themselves from starving masses. Which environment is better for a captain of industry?

Take it back a step and ask what caused the millions of starving people. Currently the causes are either a natural disaster with bandits taking power and preventing help from getting in, or severely mismanaged economy with too many barriers preventing people from get themselves out of poverty.

Show me the numbers if you have them readily available, if not I'll get around to looking them up at some point.  There are too many variables to consider, though.  Who came up with the amount necessary to overcome the Haiti disaster?  Governments?  They have an incentive to overstate the amount to feed their corrupt bureaucracies.  How do you know charities wouldn't give more in a different situation, one where they was no government?  Perhaps they are only giving x amount now because they know government will take care of the rest.  We can't know how an alternate time line would play out; we can only speculate.


So first its impossible for the poor people to steal from the rich man because he has his wealth in secure locations or useless items, but then we have to tax him to prevent poor people from robbing him?   ???  Which is it?


Yes, you need rule of law in society.  That law does not necessarily have to come from the State, though. 


Probably Somalia, actually.  Business men have started electric companies, internet providers, banks, etc. from scratch and done really well considering the impoverished state of the country, the current famine and the civil war in the South.  From what I've heard about Norway it has very high taxes and lots of regulations which make it hard for new companies to start up.

So the Heritage Foundation ranks Norway as the 30th most economically free nation in the world, which is pretty good.  It has very high business and trade freedoms which means I am wrong about it being heavily regulated.  In that case it would definitely be better for starting a business than Somalia.  But I'm not sure it's appropriate to compare the two, one as an example of a successful government and one as a "failed" anarchy.  A lot of the strife in Somalia has been caused by foreign countries interfering and trying to force the people to accept a government they did not want.