Bitcoin Forum

I don't know much about political philosophies, but I am very interested in them. Since I've joined the Bitcoin community, I've seen those terms used a lot, and it was the first time I had ever heard of them. I've done some research, and I pretty much get the gist of them, but I'd like to hear from you guys. If you associate yourself with either of these, I would like to know...

• Which one
• Your brief definition of it
• Why you believe in it

I'm not trying to start a debate thread (Though it's not discouraged,) I'm just curious. Thanks.

Heard of AC, never heard of AS.
Don't associate with either, now that I've read some about both.
I think it's the "A"-thing that bothers me a bit.

I believe anarcho-capitalism is the best system possible until society reaches a state of post-scarcity.

It's explained in this lecture:
http://vimeo.com/13550780

I don't plan on it, I'm just curious.

I agree with theymos (though I haven't watched the video).

Anarcho-Capitalism is a society in which no entity has a legal monopoly (the legal part being the important bit). Note that I'm sure others define ACapitalism to be very different.

Anarcho-Capitalism is the best system I've encountered to let market forces and competition, combined with a lack of monopolistic coercion provide the highest standard of living to the most possible people, regardless of their status/race/gender/etc. Money is money, and human greed trumps all. Why not put that to work for us?

I'll be interested to see how an Anarcho-Socialist defines the term, since it would seem that Socialism requires the use of force by definition.

socialism by opt in/opt out, stigmatism and ostracism. it is more freeing to not be tied down by wealth, freedom to pursue your dreams or freedom to make profits which by default infringe upon someone elses freedom? AC is just a different form of control (economic)

Profits without wealth creation? What?

edit.

Anarchism is lack of a government. The system described in the video I linked above has no government and employs the use of capitalism, so the term "anarcho-capitalism" seems accurate to me. Terminology doesn't really matter, though.


That would be for protection agencies to deal with. One of the reasons I like anarcho-capitalism is its ability to deal with hard-to-decide edge cases like this in a fairer way than any other proposed system I've seen.

Let define our non-favorite ideology out! Anarcho-socialism is not anarchism, it's statist!

The term Anarchism has been in use for over 100 years to mean more than just anti-government or lack of government. It is only relativity recently that "capitalists who don't like states" have started to claim the term for themselves.

Also, you haven't really addressed the question in the second part of your post. I originally from a country where the land was effectively stolen from the original inhabitants by Europeans. That's a single example of a past wrong, which can't be addressed by magical hand waving. There are many more recent examples of governments, and/or powerful individuals or other groups, just stealing resources (including land). Yet this is now recognized by all the other states.

I am not responsible for my ancestor's wrongdoing to another. As far as I know, one of my ancestor probably got raped and have a baby.

edit.

I don't believe in the goal of equality.

OK, thought experiment.

Before you were conceived, your mother stole the life savings (a significant amount of money) off an otherwise blameless and innocent person (Person A). You were born, and then raised with the benefit of your mother having lots of extra cash that she wouldn't otherwise have had. She dies, and you inherit that money. Person A then discovers who stole the initial cash, and tracks down the money to you.

Are you responsible for handing back the money your mother stole to the person she originally stole it from? Even though you are not responsible for your ancestor-(one generation)'s wrong doing (something I completely agree with incidentally).

OK, now, it wasn't your mother who did the thieving, but her mother (before your mother was even conceived). Person A managed to live to a ripe age, and is still alive when, years later, they track down the cash to you. (It's the same cash, though perhaps reduced, due to there being only one child in each generation, and all the cash being inherited by that child).

Now, it was not your mother, or grandmother, but your great-great-great-grandmother/grandfather who did the thieving. The original person who lost the money is no longer alive, neither, is the original thief. But, there is still a clear line of inheritance, with the bulk of the money going to you. There is also a clear line from the original Person A (who's descendant's have lived in poverty since) and their descendant having discovered the theft, discovered who was the original thief, has tracked down the money, to you.

If you the right to inherit clean money, (and, in some cases, estates inherit debts), then surely someone has the right to inherit the right to stolen property? (I'll also note here, in most jurisdictions, a person who unwittingly buys stolen property still has no claim on that, if the original owner can be found.)

The difference between the clean-cut thought experiment and the real world is that things aren't as clean-cut. But the point remains that the vast majority of land was stolen at some point, and the vast majority of "wealth" as well I would bet. How do you justify that theft, unless you say "it's OK if it was more than X years ago"?

I didn't say you did. I was just pointing out that socialism doesn't actually equal statism. Indeed, I would say that the only true socialism, stateless. It's a definitions thing, I was just trying to get the definitions clear.

I don't' care what society people make, providing human interactions are voluntary.  Aggressive violence is evil.

So my philosophy is: Voluntaryism

I believe the best (and most moral, and natural) economic model that a free society can choose to use is laissez-faire capitalism.

I'm happy for people to choose other ways of living their life, but I will choose to trade capital.

So, Capitalist A has laid claim to a large amount of land (previously recognized by the state, before the revolution, now there's no state). Individualist B comes along and notices that there's this great land just sitting there not being used for anything. Like prime farmland! Oh, 'cept there is a sign that says all the land belongs to Capitalist A.

Individualist B takes down the sign and gets to work creating "wealth", growing vegetables etc.

If Capitalist A comes along and uses violence to get Individualist B off the land, is that aggressive or defensive?

Aggressive of course, you said that 'Capitalist A comes along' and was not 'making productive use.'
Capitalist A had no right to claim 'ownership' over something that is not a product of his time and and effort.

as in i'm saying there is a choice between, freedom to not be tied down by some job you need to do to earn money and to instead pursue your dreams, or alternatively you have the freedom to control your money and make profits, and economics is a zero sum game so someone will lose out.

I don't think it is. I think conscious economics is a win-win situation for all.

Tied down to money? It's called having to sustain yourself as an organism. Nobody can do it for you. I'm sorry we're not immortal.

As a thought experiment, what would you guys say to the following assertion:

"Saudi Arabia is a perfect anarcho-capitalist (or libertarian) society. It just so happens that all the land is owned by one family, who are justly free to make their own rules for people they choose to allow on their property."

It isn't much of libertarian society if the family denies citizens the right to property.

The House of Saud permits people to live on their land with certain agreed-upon restrictions, one of which is that they can't have property. Is this agreement not something a person should be allowed to set up on their property in a libertarian society?

That's a big land claim. I can't imagine homesteading that much properties.

So a libertarian/ancap society can have limits on how much property a person can possess?

No, but there are two rules.  You must not have acquired the property by force, and must be making use of it.

I think you gotta be able to make these lands productive. It doesn't matter if you don't consume it yourself.

I mean, if there's an abandoned factory that nobody was taking for a whole years or that there is no guards for a whole year...then I think it would make sense to take the property and homestead it.

Of course, the whole question of stickability of property is a big issue. I think a good rule of thumb is that it should

a) prevent conflict

b) incentivize the owner/capitalist to develop the property.

A good example of this conflict is the Discovery Channel's The Colony. The colonists homestead a factory they thought was abandoned and that nobody was using it. They build a lot of things to make it their. For example, they increase the security of factory. They installed solar panel scavenged from local sources. They construct various apparatus that make life living in the colony more bearable. Of course, the original owner and his girlfriend came. The colonists recognize them as equal co-owners because they have the key to the place. However, they squandered resources so much that the colonist have to kick them out.

That's normal anarchism (non ancap) you're describing.

You can read more about the 'homesteading' movement, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squatting

From an economist's viewpoint, I think property right incentivize people to produce and prevents/minimize conflicts. It just make sense.

It is only incidental that some political philosophies endorse it.

However, it is safe to said that anarcho-capitalists believe in homesteading too.

The way capitalism is defined by the majority of anarcho-socialists makes it incompatible with anarchism. There is, however, at least a subset of anarcho-capitalists that define capitalism in such a way that it is compatible with anarcho-socialism.

Capitalism and socialism are statist paragdimes.
Anarchy is freedom from government violence and theft

You will never be free from social hierarchy as long as humans are involved.  However, I agree with the second part.  It's just that the practical application of it is not clear-cut.


Who decides what is the "full value" of the labor?  


It is important to note that work is not only physical labor, but management, business forecasting, utilizing the knowledge of how best to employ resources, etc.

The accumulation of capital is how economies grow and how the standard of living rises.  If individuals could only have the resources they can only employ physically, then we will all end up in subsistence lifestyles.  That's fine if that's what you want, but it is not what I want.  I like large companies that used accumulated capital to provide me with technological innovations and cheap services to raise my standard of living.  Is it not coercion for you to take that away from me?  Dictating that individuals can only have resources they can immediately employ is a restriction of freedom.  Do I misunderstand your position?


**Edited to fix the quotations.

The right to property? What, so... land-reform? Socialist allotments of resources?

They could sell the property for labor or money in exchange.

Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are crumby terms. There's really just capitalism and anarchism, with various subcategories for anarchism. Anarchists desire either the peaceful obsolescence or violent destruction of capitalism and government. They also believe that the two are inseparable. Anarchist positions range from mutualism, who's subscribers believe in markets, money, and some property rights, to communism who's subscribers do not believe in money, markets, or property rights.

Capitalists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to become landlords, employers, and usurers. Capitalists assume a range of positions with one extreme including anarcho-capitalism. These capitalists wish to abolish government, but fail to realize the inseparability of government and capitalism. In the absence of governments as we commonly understand them, people would have to create very small ones so as to engage in capitalism. For example, if someone wanted to take the product of the labor of some farmers, he would need the ability to kick them out if they don't obey. As such, he would have to establish a monopoly of force over the territory containing the farm. He can provide the force himself or get it from a larger government.

::)
Socialists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to distribute it evenly among those who didn't earn it.

Apparently the priesthood doesn't teach economics in seminary. 

Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words?  It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language.

There isn't really an official definition of capitalism, but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers.

Thanks for playing

an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions.

sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.

More like he hates the idea of leaders, employers, landlords, and tenants.

But even the bitcoin project is a hierarchy.

Satoshi is our benevolent dictator. Gavin is the lead developer. I am a global moderator. Theymos is an administrator.

FatherMcGruder have a really bad case of hating neutral things.

We should recognize that the position of leader isn't necessarily a position of power. The leader is just another job. His specialization just happens to be the coordination of several specialiaztions to achieve the ends the venture desires. Coordinating people and their roles is a skill and necessary most of the time, unless all roles agree on and wish to achieve the same end result.

The workers as a whole can reject the director's vision at any time, assuming they have other means to achieve their desired ends which will in most cases require stable vision.

That's what the leader/director/employer does: provides stable vision that isn't subject to constant change from a collective of multiple whims and desires. Without stability there is no efficiency and the end will never be reached.

Your definition doesn't refute my description.

Corporations aren't compatible with your definition of capitalism?

This forum does indeed have a hierarchy. The users did not choose the moderators and both the moderators and operators can unilaterally make decisions that can affect the users. As long as it remains open source, or at least free of copyright restrictions, development of Bitcoin software is free of hierarchy. Lead developers will have no power to prevent other programmers from doing whatever they want with it.

Well, it's not unreasonable for an anarchist to dislike rulers, the clue being in the name: Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχίᾱ anarchíā, "without ruler") (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Anarchy).

Whether Satoshi, Gavin, kiba or Theymos are "rulers" is an interesting question. The application itself is hosted on Github and is, I assume, open to anyone to commit to, and it's entirely possible for people to fork from it anyway (I believe genjix (http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4086.msg75682#msg75682) has done so, for example). I don't regard Gavin or Satoshi as "rulers", nor do I regard either of them as being able to "rule" me in any way (sorry, Gavin! Sorry, Satoshi!)

Is this forum anarchic? Probably not, and it probably couldn't be no matter how much we wanted it to be. It's hosted in the US, and the hosts are subject to US law: there are limits to what they can reasonably permit, to what we should reasonably expect them to permit. Does this matter? Probably not much. Sure, lots of decisions about the application and protocol are made here, but, again, the ability to fork mitigates this.

Satoshi, Gavin, Kiba, etc. guide the direction of the content of this forum and the Bitcoin forum.

They are leaders but what they implement is voluntarily accepted.

My thinking on this forum has little to do with kiba, Theymos, et al, but with "banning" etc. Of necessity (to protect forum members from arrest etc) certain activities are banned. There are rules that are enforced by rulers. I'm not saying that's undesirable (I can't see any way to avoid it while remaining hosted in the US or similar state), just that it precludes this forum from being an example of an anarchy.

Anarchy has already been tried. Obviously it didn't last long. I don't know why we need any further examples unless there has really been a change.

OK, let me rephrase that. This forum is (of necessity) hierarchical. The project as a whole is not (and, as an added extra, I'm not sure it would matter even if it was).

The examples of anarcho-capitalism that have existed ended for reasons not related to anarchy, but external forces.

In the Icelandic Commonwealth, it was due to the church implementing their own policies which made it no longer an anarchy, and even then the anarchic system supported the country and kept it from falling into chaos for almost 300 years.

In the American Old West, the United States Government came in and shut everyone down (though to be fair, they had laid claim to the land first)

I'm not sure I'd categorise the Icelandic Commonwealth as an anarchy: it was, IIRC, a system of chiefs forming into a parliament. I'd agree with the Old West, however.

I find the "external forces" part interesting: in the (anarcho-capitalist) Old West the US Government arguably represented one form of capitalism. In (anarcho-communist) Ukraine in the 1920s and Catalonia in the 1930s the government of the Soviet Union represented one form of communism, and crushed anarchist forms of communism. I wonder... we should create an anarcho-pacifist state, and wait for the other pacifists to fight us :-)

And that is exactly why I consider anarchy of any form to be an unstable political condition, and therefore not something to be strived for, as it results in the weakening of the social cohesion that comes with national identity.  I can think of no case that an archarcy (or anything close to that) survived a serious external challenge to that status quo, for no other reason than those inhabitants with the greatest resources to contribute to the collective defense often found it in their own best interests to simply pick up and vacate before the new power made good on his claims.  An anarchist state, by it's very definition, does not foster a national identity or sense of national loyality with it's citizens.  This is why they are often defacto anarchies by transitional happenstance, and not outright design.

Anarchy isn't to be strived for, not because it can't be a great society for the present inhabitants, but because the form of governance that follows is rarely better than a stable republic could have been.  This is exactly the reason that the framers of the Constitution sought to move away from the Articles of Confederation under the threat that the British Monarcy would attempt to reassert authority, which they eventually tried in the War of 1812.  That was a close call, and could have turned out completely differently if the one or more of the less affected states had declared neutrality and refused to contribute to the war effort; which is something that could have happened under the Articles.

Both fascism and communism as political ideologies would qualify as capitalist under such a definition. 

This is in line with the political defintion of "capitalism", but not the economic one, which is notablely different.

Both societies are capitalist. It's probably hardest to see the capitalism under communism, but it's easy when you realize that the state is the only legal capitalist in such a society.

Is it? A landlord has whatever monopoly of force the state allows him over his land. Without this larger state, he must establish the monopoly, and therefore create a state, himself. This arrangement seems nice until the landlords start hiring mercenaries, and then we have the beginnings of a larger state. Basically, landlords cannot exist without states. The same goes for employers and usurers.

I have a monopoly over the cells that make my body. What are you going to do about it? I'm coercing you. I'm denying you my body.

Cry some more.

Landlords and employers can both exist sans a state, and have historicly.  I'm not sure what you mean by usurers, but if you mean money-lenders, then they have existed without state support as well.

Regardless, this thread highlights the problems with debates among lay thinkers using technical jargon.  Your defintion of capitalism is too broad to even have a conversation about the merits or faults of such an idea.

I am in no need of your cells, so no, you aren't coercing me. If I did and you used that fact to take advantage of me, that'd be coercion.

You must be referring to Kiba.  ;)

In the absence of a larger state, landlords would have to establish a monopoly of force over territory to evict tenants who don't pay up. Employers and usurers would have to do the same with capital. If you don't like the state for maintaining monopolies of force over territory (and capital), you shouldn't tolerate employers, landlords, and usurers.

No-one pays tax to bitcoin.org and there is no fear that they will send their goons around to stick you in the rape cage for not following their rules.
 :)

Not necessarily a monopoly, although that is likely to occur, and it may be difficult to tell any practical difference between such a collective force structure and a state.



No they don't.  At least not without the aid of a state, and they do still exist in the absence of state support.

Just look at the drug cartels in Mexico.  Do they need state support for an employee structure?  Do they need state support for financing?


I never said anything about tolerating them.  I said that they exist.  Just because you (or I) might not agree that human societies should function this way, it's an objective fact that they are and arrived this way in a straight forward (and probably entirely natural) way.

Ah, but the Mexican cartels are states. People don't normally use that word for them because it gets confusing, but it's true. Businesses pay taxes to the cartels in exchange for protection. In a lot of cases, one can't even do business without permission from a cartel, similar to registering a business with an official state. Perhaps it’s better to think of government as organized crime, an entirely capitalistic organization.[/quote]

If you believe that then must also believe that government is inevitable.

A cartel isn't a state as normally would be defined, as they tend not to have geographical bounderies.  A drug cartel could be considered a phyle.


Inevitable is a good word for it.  Not desirable, nor irresistable; but certainly inevitable.

Sure they do. It's called turf.

Phylum?

That's a different discussion though.

If there were no other greater state that also had claim to the same 'turf', then I would agree, but a cartel is not a state so long as it remains in contention for that same 'turf'.


No, a phyle.  Like a tribe, but more politically structured....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phyle
"Phyle (Greek φυλή phulē, "clan, race, people", derived from ancient Greek φύεσθαι "to descend, to originate") is an ancient Greek term for clan or tribe. They were usually ruled by a basileus. Some of them can be classified by their geographic location"

In the modern sense, they are used to describe a type of mostly voluntary city-states from the fiction of Neal Stephenson's The Diamond Age...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Diamond_Age#Phyles

"The world is divided into many phyles, also known as tribes, distinguishable by either ethnic, religious, political or other emerging cultural markers....
Most societies depicted in the novel have become globalized, and maintain enclaves throughout the world....
The phyles coexist much like historical nation-states under a system of justice and mutual protection, the Common Economic Protocol."

Not for me.

An official state can claim that it owns the land that a cartel controls, but that doesn't matter to the people living there. If the cartel is in charge, it's the state.

Interesting. To the extent that a given phyle is authoritarian though, it isn't anarchistic.

I didn't claim that it was.

In the end, would anarchism increase individual happiness?

I don't give a damn about happiness. Happiness is just an emotional state.

If I want happiness, I would just do drugs.

Happiness through drugs wouldn't be sustainable in the long-term.

In the end, our individual perception is an emotional state. Happiness is an emotional state but a rather integral one. A being must be motivated to live in order to sustain itself. Sure, happiness and its means could be considered subjective but a true definition can be given. It's whatever keeps a being willing to live whether it be having achieved happiness or through its pursuit.

Under an ordinary human condition, happiness should be its long-term purpose. The means to such an end is up to anybody's whim.