Bitcoin Forum

Thanks for underlining my point.

I have some respect for statists who make arguments and engage in discussions ( as long as they are civil).

This is just a child ranting.

I've noticed this trend: people who refuse to use the edit or insert quote function and instead decide to post in succession, even up to three to four times in a row, are often in support of the state.

Why does this happen?

The Juice News had an episode about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxHvHi-MdIM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxHvHi-MdIM)

One of my favorite quotes from that episode: "why don't you leave guns to the criminals, like us in the military?"  :P

How libertarians see those who like to take away freedom from people:

http://home.online.no/~bj.olsen/hitler.jpg

Giving up one's own bargaining chips seems to be the staple of the sheeple.  ::)

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

Is Atlas Shrugged worth reading? I always hear polar opposite opinions on it.

I think this thread is reason alone not to read it, at least I hope so.
Honestly I wouldn't know, or care. :) (http://galtse.cx/)

Well, guns are necessary for survival up in Alaska.

The way I see it there needs to be an evaluation and a waiting period with a licence and gun & ammo registration.

The holder of the licence will have to keep descriptions of the safety measures kept and how the bullets were generally expended. (Hunting, stored, etc).
Any falsification on the form should be considered for taking back or placing restrictions on the licence.


I don't see why people need guns in cities and urban areas, especially those who do not need to hunt to survive... (If more than 80% of the meat you consume is store bought, you don't really need to hunt).


I had a lot of anarchist friends. Anarchism in Greece is a response to the crappiest, ultra-corrupt government of Greece. Huge loans were taken and politicians (presidents and others) took billions of euros in personal accounts. (That is why Greece has such a huge debt problem).

If the government is super bad, (North Korea level badness) anarchism is the fastest solution for the short-term. Anarchism would never work unless there were decentralized governments all over the place with the gaps in between being anarchist free-lands. (Go out of the limit of the city and get raped and beaten) all free of charge (legal).

It's because when people aren't bounded by rules, regulations or laws, or there's no enforcement, the community norms inevitably drift to selfishness.

Socialists, like me, like bitcoin because it allows freedom and anonymity in transactions - which is as important to those fighting for change against dictatorships as it is for individual free-marketeers :)

That makes sense, but this community does have rules--perhaps not explicitly stated but we can all see what they are by observation.  Do you think this occurs due to a person always being fed rules, that they become very poor at identifying them otherwise?

Hmm, are you sure it allows anonymity in transactions?  ::)

Authoritarian, socialist governments have disarmed and murdered 175 million of their own people during the 20th century alone.  Nearly every war-mongering president, prime minister, dictator, and ruler has been a proponent of big government and the agenda of the International Banking Cartels--the same people who put Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Mao, and other tyrannical regimes in place.

At the beginning of politics there was a free market for force. Anyone who could round up a posse had his own little army that could provide protection in exchange for tribute - of food, gold, women, whatever. The successful posses became states, and as more land and people came under their protection they started establishing bureaucracies to manage it all.

Over the years many of these groups failed.

Nowadays force is controlled by a cartel known as the UN of about 200 of these groups who call themselves countries, have mostly agreed upon territories for their control, and support each other if any nascent group tries to challenge their monopoly. They've diversified somewhat from their original purposes - though they still exact tribute, they now offer more services in return.

Now, this is my critique of libertarianism:

We view the original state of nature as pure freedom. These groups formed corporations to provide security to their customers in exchange for tribute - payment - which was given to their shareholders: the warriors or nobility. Doesn't history then prove that over the course of time a state of infinite competition settles into one of multiple monopolies which band together to stamp out potential challengers in their market? This entirely disproves libertarianism's main argument that infinite competition will provide infinite freedom.

As it applies in this context, not only should there be competition in the currency marketplace, but I believe that the world will be better off if we offer more than one viable cryptocurrency.  Almost everywhere in the market, you end up with 2-4 major players and a dozen or so mid-size players.  From social networking to soda, from cars to airlines, from cell phone makers to their service carriers, there are only a few big suppliers.  However, there are almost always a few small startups.

That's not the main argument; the main argument is on ethics, claiming that using coercion is immoral, and the use of systematic coercion through the state is still systematically immoral.

I respect socialists and communists who actually have principles as opposed to Republicans and Democrats who's ideas come from others telling them what they should believe because of who they are.

I especially respect those that would be ok with my community of free thinkers living next to theirs without the need to try to regulate us "for our own good".

So... what the first page of this thread is trying to say is that a civilized talk between libertarians and the rest of the world is impossible?

Glad to know this isn't true :]

actually there are two main lines of reasoning against the coercive power of state: the moral and the practical. The moral argument says: "it is wrong to force people to give up their resources and be ordered around under threat of force". The practical argument says: "the state is a hierarchical monopolistic structure and as such provides perverse incentives for its managers and absolutely SUCKS at collecting accurate information and making intelligent decisions based on it". Personally, I don't give a shit about the moral argument, I leave that to the moralists :)

I suppose that would be the difference between the NT and the NF :P

What are NT and NF? Sorry, I just woke up and the coffee molecules haven't reached my processor yet.

Its a stupidly long book, that, if it was re-written well could be half the size and get the point over far better!

Its a good little story, but doesn't prove anything other than similar types of people like to stick together!

I used to consider Libertarianism as a good ideology, but slowly realized that it was just as ideologically impossible as socialism.

What the real world system that we have does, which is better, is that it creates a number of levels of trades for each trade, through adding various levels of bureaucracy. The result is that one trade which would only be of benefit to two people under libertarianism, actually benefits 10+ people under whatever you want to call what we have in the real world.

This is a very simplistic example, and to break down a real world example to prove it would take many 1000s or words - maybe even a book the size of Atlas Shrugged! ;-)

+1 I was wondering where all the real communists and socialists had gone off to, because the real ones were actually pretty intelligent and rational.

whoa, it takes some courage to come out of the closet as a socialist on this forum. call me crazy, but for me.. following any extremist ideology never works. maybe voluntaryism works for me.


yep, that was the gist of what i was saying. i can't follow anarchism as an ideology because it's too extreme for me, and socialism... kinda sucks. my conclusion is just that people are fucked up, and they need to change (myself included). ideology is just a tool used by people.

It's a part of the MBTI; here's the descriptions for the two:

XNTX (http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/rational_overview.asp)

XNFX (http://www.keirsey.com/4temps/idealist_overview.asp)

That makes sense. Thanks.

Well I'm a Libertarian Socialist, so would you recommend it? The length of the book is one of the reasons I've never got around to starting it.


What's extreme about it? It only seems to be a dirty word in the states, where I don't think the majority of people even understand what it means.

http://philoforchange.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/eins2-scaled10001.jpg

Why does Socialism "kinda suck"? And why is Anarchism extreme? Libertarian Socialism is Anarchism, but I'm not talking about the faux punk rock fuck tha government bullshit (although fuck da government! :D). I'm afraid a little anarchy is going to be needed to bring about revolution or change the status quo, unless you are comfortable and happy with the corrupt hypocritical governments policing the globe and doing nothing but starting wars and laundering billions of tax payers money into the pockets of corporations. This 'democracy' we have is a sheer illusion. You get the choices between voting for Tweedle-dum or Tweedle-dumber. Whoever wins won't change shit, nor will they do anything they said they would; in fact, they usually do the exact opposite.

As a European, let me give you an idea about why socialism sucks.

Firstly, socialists seem to spend all their time trying to make everything equal. They tell people they want everyone to get an equal chance at opportunity, however, this is where things go wrong.

The one thing that socialists don't like, is someone using their initiative and getting richer due to it. 

Socialists would prefer everyone has an awful level of service, than that some people can pay for a better level of service.  It may be awful, but everyone can use it is a success for a socialist.  The fact that its awful is because the government isn't spending enough on it.  Socialists can then campaign that governments can pay more for a better service, and they can get the money from the people who have 'cheated' and grabbed an opportunity through using their initiative!

The end result is that nothing works, except for people in the higher levels of central government and socialist organizations!

The worst part is that anyone who tries to better themselves has to pay twice to do so - once to actually make the opportunity work, and twice when they become successful!

Put it this way, I am forced to pay for a health service through my taxes.  The cost is similar to what I would pay if I wanted medical insurance. However, because I have to pay for the former, I can't afford the latter!

Socialists make sure that everyone is equally downtrodden.

That is why socialists suck!

On the contrary, I think that would be the opinion of some 'Diet Socialists' (or the 'poor' ones), but not ones I agree with. There are many Socialist schools of thought, so to lump them all together collectively is fundamentally wrong (you can't put National Socialism in with Democratic Socialism for instance). I'm not one of these "Robin Hood Socialists" who think we should take from the rich and give to the poor. I want equality, but for those who are successful and work hard all their life should not be penalised. I personally believe in a flat tax - for example: say everyone pays 20% whether you earn 15K a year or 15 trillion. In countries like France they have up to 75% tax which is absolute robbery. Even 50% tax is in my opinion.

I'm not saying Socialism is perfect or without flaws, but neither is standard democracy/capitalism, and the latter is not sustainable at all the way it's going and is going to fail triumphantly if nothing is done to curb its recklessness (you could argue that it already has with the subprime mortgage crisis etc).

I have some Kool Aid for you. ;-)

Firstly, Libertarian Socialist is an oximoron. Your statement regarding a flat tax proves that! No socialist would support a flat tax because it would seen as a tax cut for the rich, and that isn't equality!

Secondly, All socialists are basically the same, the only difference is that they want themselves to be in charge.  More taboo is that socialism is just the friendly version of communism. The differences between the two ideologies are very limited, and the long term ideal of socialism is the implementation of communism.

While I totally agree that what we have now isn't perfect, it just seems easier to get what you want by learning how to play the game, than to try and get everyone playing a new game!

Oh, and the sub prime mortgage crisis was the unintended consequence of a law created by democrats in the 1970s. They implementing an equality bill where minorities could buy houses they couldn't afford - based on the idea that the reason they couldn't get loans was that they were being discriminated against (yeah, they were too poor!)

The worst thing with socialists is that they use emotion to solve problems! ;-)

I think you have a naive/incorrect/generalised view on socialists/socialism, or perhaps you've had some bad experiences with them (which I can understand if you've only dealt with these "Robin Hood Socialists"). I have no desire to lead over anyone; however, I also have no desire to be governed by these greedy hypocritical capitalist warmongering pigs who fritter away their peoples taxes on wars whilst flogging off state-owned assets to the highest bidder - especially when they should be buying back state-owned business and building schools and hospitals with that very money.

This is a great little speech by Noam Chomsky on Libertarian Socialism and the supposed contradiction of the term: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE (it's only 5 minutes long).


I think this kind of apathy and blind submission by the masses to roll over and play the game whilst we let them fuck us repeatedly in the arse is one of main problems of why nothing ever changes. People seem to want change and are angry with the state of the world, but they only want revolution if they can sit at home and watch it happen on their flatscreen TVs from the comfort of their own lazyboy whilst they dull their senses with an opiate of their choosing. This is the whole Matrix predicament:

http://www.triathlontrainingblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/pill.jpg

It doesn't have to be a Socialist-led revolution, but which pill you choose is ultimately up to you.

I had a nice chuckle there! ;-)

I have spent far too much time in the company of socialist politicians to be in any doubt of my view!

Imagine you actually had a revolution - what would be the result?

The only people who ever win in a revolution are the politicians who lead them.  The people are ALWAYS the losers - it doesn't matter what ideology you use, however, of the ones available to us, socialism is the worst!

Its the worst because when they are out of power, socialist politicians promise the earth, based on a nice warm feeling of goodness! When they finally get into power they only look after themselves and their friends.

This isn't me having a bad experience, its the experience of every European country that has any left leaning government in charge.

From what you describe, you would possibly see European and UK centralist and right wing parties as being socialist enough for you, even though they themselves don't see themselves under that banner.

And that leads to the last point that the name of your ideology and its definition is ultimately pointless because its all about power - and as we all know, power corrupts, especially socialists! ;-)

Vizzini got it wrong in "The Princess Bride." Turning in your arms is the classic blunder.

http://offgridsurvival.com/wp-content/themes/church_10/images/2013/04/turninyourarms.jpg

And I have a good chuckle at your logic and willingness to let governments do what you're moaning Socialists would do if they got into power. It doesn’t matter what name it's under if politicians are fucking their people over.

And all of what you said applies to currently 'democratically' elected politicians in their capitalist systems. They promise the earth and do the exact opposite. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet with the mere word 'Socialism' alone. Just because people have failed in the past does not mean they will in the future. Of course if a phony Socialist gets in nothing will change, but simply saying Socialism = bad; Democracy/capitalism also = bad, but I can't be bothered to change it so I'm ok with it until it affects my comfort in my nice little house doesn't work either. And politicians don't need to lead a revolution; the people do. If we wait around waiting for a politician to come along we'll be waiting around forever; and like I said, it doesn’t have to be under the banner of Socialism, just united under the want of common change, because the current system has failed massively. But again, red or blue pill.

Has anyone thought about what binds together all of the various flavors of statism?  In other words, what are some of the things that it would fail without?

A big one that has been glossed over once or twice is the way we humans tend to hierarchically organize ourselves.  It seems to me that this makes statism of one form or another (including democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship) natural outcomes.  Perhaps such organization was a natural evolutionary response to the environment that early man found himself in, but is it still necessary, or even advantageous today (other than for the purpose of propagating the various forms of statism we are still subjected to today)?

Ultimately the argument that the use of force by the state to coerce individuals to its will is immoral falls on deaf ears.  If those of us who do not care to live under such a system would like to see a change, then we need to find effective ways of organizing ourselves that naturally support classic liberalism (or whatever flavor of anti-statism you support).  For example, disruptive technology like Bitcoin may turn out to be an effective way of organizing economic power in a manner that is disruptive to statism, by creating a compelling method of economic organization based on non-hierarchical principles.  But I don't think we can rely on it being sufficient by itself to bring about the downfall of statism.  More work is required.

Sites like www.josietheoutlaw.com raise public awareness of some of the negative aspects of statism and are something that most of us anti-statists can agree upon.  But a lot more is going to be required in order to end the long role that statism has played in human social evolution.

You missed out all the practical parts of why I think as I do.

If you want to see change, then just make it happen under the system we have now - that is how politics works. Having a revolution is just proof that your ideas need violence to make them work, otherwise you could just put them to a vote - but it takes time for an idea to flourish!

The problem for any ideology is that the people don't care for thinking, they just want to live in a safe place where food is plentiful and stress is low.  However, ideology appeals to power hungry people who don't have the ability to format their ideas into a way that can make the life of the people any better without lying! - because people don't want to hear about compromise, which is what politics is all about!

Maybe you need to spend some time reading about the early days of the various revolutions we have had world wide in the last 100 years. Revolutions are lead by very focused individuals, unpaid politicians, they are the ones who get the people to move - but as I keep telling you, history shows us, they don't do it for altruistic reasons!

;-)

I never said anything about violence. Please don't think Revolution is just a synonym for Bloodshed and overthrowing governments by force. There are lots of ways you can peacefully bring about Revolution. I'd love to be able to vote somebody into power I believe in, but I've never seen any politician who I could, and even if I did I have no reason to believe what they promise. In this country we've got the choice between Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives, and as George Galloway says: They're three cheeks of the same arse. Whoever gets in; they'll just do the same shit. More wars, more tax breaks for the rich, more cuts for the poor.

Let's find somebody who is willing to do it for altruistic reasons then. It's unfortunate that most of the people who would probably make good leaders don't want to go into politics at all.

It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...

Now that's a depressing thought.  I will operate under the presumption that it is merely a cultural phenomenon until proven otherwise.

If human civilization is a complex dynamic system, then surely there are tipping points which if reached, will result in spontaneous reorganization.  Sometimes in small ways such as changes in fashion, but sometimes in much more dramatic ways, such as the reformation and subsequent renaissance in Europe which paved the way for what we call the modern world.  In many cases, the invention a a new technology (gunpowder, the printing press, the internet) created the necessary condition(s) to bring about the change, without which stagnation would have continued indefinitely.

Perhaps Bitcoin will be another catalyst for change, but we (anti-statists) must be vigilant to insure that it triumphs against the rise of centrally-controlled cryptocurrencies which are sure to be backed by the statists in their bid to dull the threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies.  And while the statists are still scrambling to figure out how to deal with the new threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies, now would be an excellent time for other similarly disruptive technologies to debut.

There isn't really Libertarian socialism, what you are looking for is traditional Anarchism/ Syndicalist Anarchism.
Both are still non-radicalized forms of Anarchism without bastardization, as they do not exclude certain concepts from the every authority must be justified principle.

"Capitalist" Anarchists (AnCap, Libertarians) for example define property either as a "natural" or "god-given" right and refuse to attribute it to Authority. They aren't really Anarchists at all and are really just radical Neoliberals.

State can be considered as an instrument to realize an individual's lust for power inherent to some humans (so called alpha males) in a more or less peaceful way, an instrument which has been sharpened and brought to perfection through centuries in socially well-developed states...

How about instead of sophisting over definitions let's look at what it would take to fix things?

The basic problem with welfare states at the current time is that we have a growing number of retirees from a large generation (baby boomers) and a shrinking number of new hands to work and pay taxes to support them (their children and grandchildren, whom they didn't have enough of - fertility rate in europe is something like 1.4-1.6 depending on sources. The same is true of the white part of america (no, shut up, go be offended elsewhere)), along with an ever expanding welfare state.

There is no quick fix to this under the current system. The options are to wait until the old folks die and a replacement-level generation is born and grow up, or to scrap the entire welfare system. And that is simply not going to happen, willingly. The only person who might have changed things was Ron Paul and we know how that went.

We are in this for the long haul.

What if you were to do as they have done in advanced cultures who are already suffering from a shrinking population?
The Japanese are investing in medial care robots, to look after their old people - seeing as the younger population are better at earning money doing clever things!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/national/robot-niche-expands-in-senior-care/

This could be technology and the capitalistic way of dealing with problems rather than the socialist way of just throwing tax money at welfare!

That's such a terrible option that I totally forgot about it.

It's not just the daily laundry and butt wiping that takes money, it's also medicine and actual medics to treat them. As the number of tax payers to tax receivers shrinks cuts will have to be made everywhere and taxation increased to cover rising costs in spite of inferior service.

Another problem with the robot revolution is that it takes away jobs from people. They will then have to find other work if they can, or go on the public teat further increasing public expenses. Using robots and automation in general instead of real humans also destroys the bonds between people. They become names on a screen instead of real humans, leading to an unemphatic society where people just don't care about eachother because their social interactions are limited. This is already happening in socialist utopias around the world.

And ultimately the real problem is the fertility level. Anything below 2.1 means the country is, in the most literal terms, dying. This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

I like libertarians but they are so easily manipulated. Look at gmo labeling. Suddenly Monsanto was libertarian.

I used to say to them 'you never kicked up this stick over "may contain traces of peanuts"' - drove them mad.

What brand of tin foil do you use? ;-)

Firstly, caring as in professionally looking after people is a low wage economy kind of thing - not a job to aspire to so nobody wants to do it. That is where robots kick ass! Otherwise, we should ban pneumatic diggers, and employ hundreds of people to dig holes using spoons if jobs is the only thing that counts!

The irony of your sentence talking about technology destroying the bond between people written on an Internet forum where people chat but never meet in real life is almost beyond words!

Finally, a lower fertility is advancement, and the sign of a mature country.  Most European countries have a negative natural population - especially Germany - the most advanced country being Japan.  Statistically, we will see the population of the Earth dropping within the next 200 years as we get to a point where we don't need as many people to keep the species going.

The problem of immigration is a different issue for a different forum, although I can totally guarantee that while there are a lot of non British born people in London, they are not the majority and Sharia courts are not legal.  In fact a few nut jobs who were trying to set up Sharia areas in East London were jailed a week or so ago for spreading religious hate - The UK may not be Christian like the US, but it certainly isn't for any other religion either! ;-)

As nwbitcoin said, Sharia courts aren't in any way legitimate. They're literally pretend courts with make-believe verdicts and hold zero power. In fact, I or anybody else could create a court and it'd have the exact same legal powers as Sharia ones: None.

You're not one of those Immigration is White Genocide people, are you? The UK population is almost 70% White and Muslims make up a mere 5%.

Whatever we think about them is irrelevant. The fact is that they have real legal power within the muslim communities - which are growing every day.

Keep in mind this is not the first time the english have been displaced. It happened about a thousand years ago when the vikings invaded and took over. Blood mixed, and the result is what we now know as brits. Language also mixed, with the result being what we now know as english.

History repeats itself. Trouble is, most people don't actually believe it does. We can discuss this again in 50 years. I'm done with it for now.

They have absolutely zero legal power within any community, Muslim or otherwise.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us. :)

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect? Not meaning anything rude by it, i often myself find that i have said things that are incorrect, i just want to be clear.

As previously said, I often read from the Libertarian standpoint that property supposed to be either a) natural or b) a "god-given" right or a mixture of both.
Analogies like "two people can't eat the same apple" are used.

When it comes down to it I have seen no proper justification for the authority to claim property at all. What I often see is muddling property with consumption (which is justified by need).
I have not seen any proper justification for the authority over ownership of land for instance, you might start with that if you don't know where to start. If you know better it's fine if you start somewhere else.

Try again. Discussion is not allowed to continue until I get a proper response to my arguments.

Hint: My authority is granted by the forum and the fact that I came up with the thread, however I do not own it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=366520

It's a start. But getting people to agree on something is hardly a proper justification. History has shown that people will agree to lots of things many of which we currently see as unjustified if they are coerced enough.

I guess the joke is on me since the guy who's unwilling or unable to give me a proper debate is Butthurt I deleted his post and you delete all your posts anyway and I can't really debate you that way either. ;D

Ok, fine  :D
I'll get back at you this evening.

The thread was originally planned as me posting funny pictures about the topic but it turned out to be heavily debated which is fine, just unexpected. And I like a good debate :)

Uh yeah The Market... much like the Ferengi Material Continuum sounds like an esoteric concept to me .

You are using a capitalist terminology here, just like I have previously excluded. But even if you didn't mean to and mean the social exchange of things and actions by which by Libertarian definition we participate if we like it or not.  (Much like the Continuum ;) )
From the classical Anarchist point of view you just admitted to my point. From the Libertarian perspective the authority over property doesn't need justification because the Invisible Hand Of The Free Market will correct any injustice. Even if that were true (which I highly object against) you can't justify the claim of Authority with it just the happenstance of that property.

You are again confusing ownership with consumption (or utilization if you will). It is not necessary to own something in order to make use of it, it's just more or less the status quo in our capitalist society,
The great difference is ownership does not require utilization. Mind you my critique of Libertarianism comes from a classical Anarchist perspective.
I have chosen this perspective to highlight the discrepancies between Libertarianism and  Anarchism which it is claimed to be related to.

I propose that Libertarianism is more related to Neoliberalism and I even think it's the same thing, just radicalized.
From a Statist perspective lawful ownership is only possible because the monopoly of force, and I tend to agree with that. The Market can not provide an environment where ownership which is unrelated to utilization is possible.
For instance it would not be possible to invest in real estate and keeping it empty for later appreciation in value. In an Anarchist society no force would prevent squatters to occupying it without ownership.

I think that in an Anarchist society ownership would just mean utilization and nothing more.

You realize that that is just a modern take on the original Texas state flag?
Read up on why Texas is a state
http://11thscreen.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Texas_Flag_Come_and_Take_It.png

Yeah, lots of gun rights activists are backwards wingnuts from Texas.

Leaving land empty for the ecosystem isn't utilization. Nature exists independently of human society and I find the "necessity" to "own" unoccupied land disgusting. It's not up to me to judge that, right, this decision has to make everybody themselves.

When it comes down to it every instance of ownership is related to the application of power, be it aggressive or defensive if not directly indirectly through past claims. And it is maintained by the application of power. (Why do you think fences are so popular)
Yes there are better and worse types of utilization for a type of resource. If you take the squatter example the squatters think that the land is better utilized they will make use of it on their own authority. Whatever authority an investor claims to have will not matter to them. Other squatters would need to share the resource or go somewhere else if the resource is too scare. Under this definition application of power is justified by the utilization and the need for that utilization. And since the squatters have greater need for a place to stay than the investor has for a park squatters win under anarchist rule of law.

Oh come on you can do better than quoting phrases.

I'm a liberal gun rights activist. And I could care less about how the world views me.  :)

Anarchist rule of law was a figure of speech for a lack of a better term.  Who knows what terms a functioning Anarchist society would use. Laws are made by the state and rules well, anybody can make some up.
I don't think my arguments boil down to these phrases. I have made logical deductions here based on these examples. You can either dismiss the examples and show that they don't have to be representative for the general case or find an error in the deductions. Or you could agree with me. ;)

At least you admit to being a liberal ;)

Yes, most importantly the word "Libertarianism" ;D


But lets say we both agree on: "Might makes right." and "To each according to his need."
Then how is the application of power ever justified if it is done to somebody with the greater need? If it's not:

How do you suppose justified ownership would work in a Libertarian society? Do you recognize a difference to how it would if it were classical Anarchism instead?

Hahaha, right. So if am the sole controller of a skynet type robotic army I have justified ownership of the world? And that's feudalism.

It is right we have very serious different options on what words mean! For me "justified" come from "justice".
The definition of Anarchy isn't "no rulers" its "Every authority must be justified." As it seems we disagree on both phrases.

Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership of you.
It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha :D

This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us.  Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end.

I did forget to quote this masterpiece.

It seems you Libertarians have some problems with ethics if that is your concept of justice.

You might be suffering from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisocial_personality_disorder

I'm no doctor though, but see one.

What a relief we are back to how the thread started. ;D

My concept of justice doesn't involve one group having special rights over another; however, my concept of justice isn't popular.  Your concept of justice, however, is, and the states of the world do have sovereignty over the people, which is understood to be morally consistent, as I pointed out.  Once we agree that this isn't justice, we can talk about what is.

That makes you look like an egoist at best and a brat at the worst though.

I urge you to research classical anarchism.
And then post-structuralist anarchism. That's the school of thought I find most attractive. I know that from where you stand right now when you read about it you see it as hypocritical.

BTW: I am proud of my sense of ethics and fuck you if you think that does not matter.

If it would only take one sentence my concept of justice is that no individual has power over another. Your sense of justice is a subset of mine.

Plot-twist: he was an anarchist all along!

A post structuralist one. As such I don't care about shutting down the governments.. And what I am saying Libertarians aren't Anarchists even if they say so.

Well, this is awkward ;D  I'm sorry for my previous words EM, I've always seen libertarian as a blanket term including anarchism as its end destination (as opposed to authoritarianism always leading to fascism), so I always figure anti-libertarian individuals are in support of the state and violence et al.  Then again, many libertarians are still in favor of the state...

There are libertarians and Libertarians. The one with the capital L are the ones I am concerned about. They represent the majority of this forum and are the people who preach "free market capitalism" which is just radical Neo-Liberalism.
I think the initial discrepancy still stands: Libertarian concept of ownership is not justified. (not according to justice). Economic Inequality can only be maintained using unjustified authority (again justice, not justification!), of course within limits. Libertarians (capital L!) do not strive after a classless society, but Anarchists do.

But quite frankly I don't see any use for either term, with l or L.

I think it's an important distinction; I believe, if a person wants to participate in a hierarchy (and I've met these people who like classes, i.e. the Libertarians), then they should have the freedom to do so.  OTOH, people who do not want to participate in hierarchies should also have this right; the world's a big place and I think there's room enough for both of these kinds of people to live, so long as they do so voluntarily.  Of course, they would clash if they decided to try to live with one another, but this kind of stuff, the diff between hierarchies and anarchy, seems to be based entirely on a person's personality.

I believe this all falls under the philosophy of libertarianism; I don't think we'll ever be able to convince everyone that anarchy is the answer (I haven't had much luck anyhow), but I do believe we can convince people not to impose their beliefs onto others.

The majority on this forum who preach that free market and consider themselves libertarians , with either l , or L , are supporting this idea because they hate the actual system , not because they are supporters of libertarianism. I see it like a trend , let's love this because we hate that.
And a few so called libertarian projects that have popped on this forum make me believe some of them don't have all their brain cells connected.