Bitcoin Forum

Why not buy one of the Greek islands. I hear they're in need of hard cash.

After having been appointed Minister of Economy in the new Saakashvili cabiner for a semester, since December 14, 2004 to January 31, 2008, he was State Minister on reforms coordination, coordinating government efforts to liberalize the economy.

He is known as a committed libertarian[1] and strong supporter of market economy, deregulation and privatization , stating that the Georgian government should sell everything except its honor. During 2004-2007, under his leadership, Georgia became the top-reforming country in the world, according to the World Bank's Doing Business report. In particular, Georgia jumped from 137 to 18 on the ease of doing business scale, ahead of Germany and France.

In August 2010, showing commendable imagination from a 5,000-mile distance, the authorities in Tbilisi invited South African farmers wanting a change of scene to consider an alternative: farming in Georgia. The country has an exuberantly pro-business government, low crime rates, and soil that positively squelches with underexploited potential.

Honduras is creating "free" zones that will be within its sovereignty but not taxed or administered by it.  They have literally decided that the only way to get administration without corruption and human rights violations is that their own state exclude itself.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/urban-prosperity-in-the-red/article2412947/

Would one of them be the place to try your idea?

Two decades after the end of real existing socialism in Georgia, ideology has again
become a problem – this time emanating from the far right. Important economic policy makers subscribe to a radical libertarianism. They fundamentally reject
intervention in the economy, and provision of public goods such as education and
health care by the state.

What EU "commies" think about Georgian government (LOL):
http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/id/08135.pdf
(article's subtitle: A Challenge for EU Convergence and Trade Unions)

I do not know about you but to me commies unhappy about a government policy means that that government does something good. :)

Why do they even keep insisting that EU is still somehow "free" territory? IMO it has long been ruled by socialist principles (or so called social-democratic at best). Enormous taxes, lots of regulation of almost everything, insane extortionist trade unions, state monopolies in some countries etc...

Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung is a think tank - nothing to do with the EU.  

How so? It's located in EU and the article is about EU policies... If you read the article a bit you'll realize that it strongly criticizes Georgia's "radical libertarian" policies for conflicting with EU policies. (which are more "proper" according to the author, with more regulation etc.)

Its akin to saying that Cato Institute is in the US, Obama is the President so the Cato Institute could be seen as representative of Obama's policies rather than of the Koch brothers that fund it.

Given the tone of the FES paper, I would not be surprised to find it was a Russian funded it.

EDIT: Its interesting to see an alternative perspective: http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=322&debate_ID=3  Note this is also another European think tank but its nothing to do with the EU.

EDIT: Its interesting to see an alternative perspective: http://www.esiweb.org/index.php?lang=en&id=322&debate_ID=3  Note this is also another European think tank but its nothing to do with the EU.

The shaping of Georgia's current reform agenda risks deepening the divide between Georgia and the rest of Europe, leaving the country more isolated and vulnerable.

The issue of "reform" that is incompatible with the EU is down to this guy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kakha_Bendukidze

He "privatised" by selling to Russians and you'll find that there were French, German and Italians bidding for the same projects but were excluded.

I tried to enter Georgia at a Turkish crossing and was refused because the Russian Army was running the post and didn't want Western Europeans going there - its hard to explain just how messed up the borders and politics is in that part of the world.

06 MAY 2012
Our society considers Georgian police to be one of the most competent and esteemed organizations in the world. The latest opinion polls show that the level of trust towards the police has reached 90%

The president also said that similar polls in 2002 illustrated that only 5-6% of citizens trusted Georgian police.
“People in Georgia disliked the police, because the law enforcement authorities were associated with danger. It was a time when organized crime was easily operating in Georgia. They had links with the authorities, were even part of it and of the law enforcement system as a whole. Consequently, the police reform was one of the most important and we had to conduct it immediately,” Saakashvili said.

Turns out there is a dedicated website website/publication on this matter:
http://www.georgianreforms.com/
"2004-2010 Seven Years That Changed Georgia Forever"

they were trying something so interesting.

Its not a fair trial of libertarianism as the Abhaz and Sth Ossetian areas are occupied and Putin is on record as saying he is "going to hang Saakashvili by the balls."  But its interesting to see how it goes.

Interesting site.  I had no idea that they were trying something so interesting.  Its not a fair trial of libertarianism as the Abhaz and Sth Ossetian areas are occupied and Putin is on record as saying he is "going to hang Saakashvili by the balls."  But its interesting to see how it goes.

non-authoritarian stream of socialism.

The Anarchism in Spain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_spain) wasn't coercive.

And this related to socialism how?

Any form of socialism requires coercion for its implementation. Whether this coercion goes hand in hand with authoritarianism does not really matter. It is wrong regardless.

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

yup, but that goes similarly for an anarcho-"capitalist" society, you can't expect anyone to accept and respect your concept of private property.

I don't necessarily share this view but:

Property is theft! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_Theft!)

Look I won't argue with you, but the very fact alone that many folks do view things differently from you is hint enough that you can't implement your AnCap as straightforwardly as you'd like to believe, i.e. without force.

Again, don't tell me, tell them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_anarcho-capitalism).

My message is not to tell you you're right or you're wrong, my message is that people think different, feel different, are different, and you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

you can't force your individual perspective on everyone.

This was because Proudhon distinguished between what he considered to be two distinct forms of property often bound up in the single label. To the mutualist, this is the distinction between property created by coercion and property created by labor. Property is theft "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army". Property is freedom for "the peasant or artisan family [who have] a natural right to a home, land [they may] cultivate, [...] to tools of a trade", and the fruits of that cultivation — but not to ownership or control of the lands and lives of others. The former is considered illegitimate property, the latter legitimate property.

They distinguish between different kinds of property...

I've talked to a proudhounite... They don't even acknowledge self-ownership. You don't own you. No, thank you.

One proudhonite. When libertarians disagree on the right to sell yourself into slavery, conservatives disagree on the military and the importance and implementation of family values, anarchists disagree on whether the anarchy should be capitalist or socialist, don't you think it's a bit unreasonable to define an ideology by what one adherent of it happens to support?

English Law System Mulled for Planned New City Lazika
16 Jun.'12

The Georgian authorities are considering having English law system as a dominant jurisdiction for commercial transactions in yet to be built new city Lazika on the Black Sea coast, instead of a codified civil law, which Georgia’s legal system is based on.

“British law will be introduced in Lazika for commercial transactions,” President Saakashvili on June 15.

He said it was “a huge experiment”, which aimed at “having an absolute safety and guarantee of commercial transactions for local and foreign investors.” He did not elaborate further into details.

According to a senior ruling party lawmaker Akaki Minashvili having a case law system in the planned new city was an idea and no relevant bill was yet elaborated.

Parliament passed with its first reading on June 12 a constitutional amendment according to which lawmakers will have to adopt an organic law to define special status of planned new city. The planned organic law is expected to define yet to be built city’s type of a semi-autonomous jurisdiction in details.

Georgia, Tbilisi, June 29 / Trend N.Kirtskhalia /
The Georgian Parliament passed with its third and final reading on June 29 constitutional amendment according to which lawmakers will have to adopt an organic law to define special status of planned new city, Lazika, on Georgia's Black Sea coast.
The organic law has yet to be drafted.
During the discussion of the initiative the government did not specify what status can be granted to this city, saying only that it will be a city with a high-power government, which will apply different legal rules.
President Saakashvili, who first announced about the idea to build the country's "second largest city" between Anaklia, close to breakaway Abkhazia, and Kulevi in the north from port town of Poti in December, said on June 15, that English law system would be introduced in Lazika for commercial transactions, instead of a codified civil law, which Georgia's legal system is based on.

Tbilisi, Georgia (CNN) - In marshland off Georgia's Black Sea coast, Georgia’s president plans to build a brand new city – which he wants to call Lazika.

The promotional spiel promises dazzling skyscrapers and a special economic environment to make this the ideal spot, according to the Georgian government, to live and do business. Plus it will house another port - along a coastline teaming with ports - to support Georgia's role as a major hub for international trade.

Georgia owes much of its growth - which was nearly 7% last year - to its strategic location, straddling East and West. As well as being an important transit point for Chinese goods, Georgia is also home to Chinese companies investing directly in various sectors of the economy, from manufacturing to tourism to energy.


In a clearing high in Georgia's Caucasus Mountains, Chinese energy giant Sinohydro has plans to build a $630 million hydro-electric facility.

“This is a very good place for a hydro-electric station and that's why we've decided to invest here,” engineer Yao Jiansong told CNN’s Diana Magnay.

“Sinohydro is famous for building dams all around the world - this is nothing new for us,” he added.

Georgia wants to build 15 new hydroelectric power plants and is courting foreign investors to invest in the sector and double its capacity by 2015.

“Hydro is one of the things that's a big success story recently,” Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili told CNN.

“It has been a big success story recently because if you look back at Georgian history this was just another post-Soviet country badly run and without energy resources. A whole generation grew up without having electricity most of the time in winter time.

“So suddenly we discovered that with corruption gone, existing resources could be used more rationally so we already could run enough electricity to make the economy grow.”

Saakashvili's term has seen a marked improvement in his country’s business climate. Georgia ranks 16th out of 183 on the World Bank's "Ease of Doing Business" survey.

In a boon to the country's image, Donald Trump has committed to investing in a new Trump Tower at the coastal resort of Batumi.

“I've always liked the region,” said Trump. “I just feel the people are very, very industrious, they're very hardworking, they're very smart, they're really good people.”

But there is still business risk. Relations with Russia have been effectively frozen since the 2008 conflict with Georgia; the borders between Georgia and the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia are still volatile.

Nor is the economy entirely stable. Beyond the glitz of the newly built skyscrapers there is still considerable poverty. Unemployment stands at 16%.

Projects like Lazika say a great deal about how Georgia wishes to present itself, but it's still far from clear where the money to build it will come from and who might eventually live there.

How do the Amish manage it?

I'm aware of such "ideas". In my opinion they are something like oxymorons.
Because the moment some of the members of such "libertarian socialist" society choose to disagree with that society's views on private property, one of the two things will happen: either this society will cease to exist (cease to be classified as "libertatian socialist") or it will resort to coercion to enforce its "societal principles".
Also, try thinking about it this way: imagine you were born in such society but you disagree with its views. Let's say you want to own more kinds of private property than its principles allow. What are your options? Will you be allowed to do so? If not, can you really call this society libertarian? If yes, can you call it socialist anymore?

Socialism isn't about sharing your TV, it's about sharing the factory/workplace.

I personally consider libertarian socialism to be much more 'libertarian' because it considers other forms of authority and hierarchry beyond government. A society that is freed from not only government/taxpayer relations but also boss/employee relations is much more free and equal, right?

I personally consider libertarian socialism to be much more 'libertarian' because it considers other forms of authority and hierarchry beyond government. A society that is freed from not only government/taxpayer relations but also boss/employee relations is much more free and equal, right?

TV or factory - this is not so important. What's more important is whether this sharing is optional, whether it is a choice of every individual. Any form of socialism (including that "libertarian" socialism) implies that it is not.

How creation of more "authority/hierarchy" (more "government"), i.e. enforcement/coercive institutions can create more freedom??? What are you smoking? ;)

Tell me how you propose to prevent people from hiring others to do work for them, or from contracting their services to another in return for wages without using authoritarian means, and I might accept you as a fellow anarchist, rather than just a socialist in different colors.

In a hypothetical libertarian socialist community, if someone somehow soley managed to acquire means of production and wished to use wage labor to operate production, it is up to the workers themselves to either choose to (in my opinion) protect themselves or accept the contract with the capitalist.

In a hypothetical libertarian socialist community, if someone somehow soley managed to acquire means of production and wished to use wage labor to operate production, it is up to the workers themselves to either choose to (in my opinion) protect themselves or accept the contract with the capitalist. In my mind though, as a libertarian socialist economy grew more and more with co-operative enterprises these would be very small minority cases, because it is unlikely that means of production that has already been socialized would ever become private (all the workers involved in that insitution would have to agree to such a descision).

If it was the case, it would have already happened as nothing stops you from creating such "socialized" enterprises in existing democratic societies. However in reality it seems that workers (mostly) prefer to be just workers and not shareholders/capitalists at the same time.

One notable example of the real world contradicting your theory: after the collapse of Soviet Union many enterprises were "privatized" there as well as in other former socialist states by distributing shares among workers, often without cost to them at all. However most of those workers apparently preferred just to sell their shares rather than give a chance to that world that you have in your mind.

Bottom line: freedom of choice destroys socialism. More freedom of choice leads to less socialism. More socialism requires more coercion.

(although I consider exclusive tax breaks for co-ops to be sound policy in statist societies).

Even if your point and example are valid, I don't think it necessarily justifies your conclusion universally. It just requires a completely different vision than is common. However, I don't consider it an impossible fantasy considering the many different political, economic, and cultural systems that have been around in just a few thousand years. It would take dedicated individuals and a lot of time to pull it off without coercion.

See. That's exactly what's I'm talking about. Such coercive policies go hand in hand with socialist ideas because the latter can not be implemented otherwise. (translation of your example: "choose: pay more taxes or operate a socialist-ish enterprise")

Many people are content with or want government, and I think it is here to stay for quite a while. I also think most people believe in some form of progressive taxation and wealth redistribution. The only point I was trying to make there is I think that if you are going to have a government that has as its goal more income equality, then it makes much more sense from a policy point of view to indirectly support instiutions that create wealth equality (e.g. co-ops) instead of going through a much more inefficient system of taxing capitalists and re-distributing welfare to the poor. Less government expenditures would be required if co-ops were the major mode of economic progress, so I think it is a pretty fair deal to encourage them with tax breaks. If anything this would lead to a more libertarian or non-existant government, and thus libertarian/anarchist socialism.

The highlighted sentence probably answers the question "how?" but isn't it rational to answer the question "why?" first?
I suppose "it would take dedicated individuals and a lot of time to pull off" making everyone walk backwards too. But WHY do it?

Another more important question than what it would take is why did not it happen yet (without coercion). I believe it's because not many people really want it. My point is that socialism can not happen naturally (not many people WANT it, or even no one REALLY want it, otherwise it would have happened already) and the only way socialist ideologists ever managed to implement any form of socialism is by coercion. ALL examples of "success" involve coercion in one form or another. And even if there are plenty of people who want to live in a socialist society who gave them right to coerce everybody else into it?

I disagree with your claim that all examples involve coercion, but I guess it depends on the scale on which you require to be considered a success.

The reasons why are numerous, in addition to all the benefits of anarchism (which you have to be for in the first place before you can support libertarian socialism, if you don't then this discussion is mostly meaningless) you would have the benefits of even more liberty and power distributed among a strong community, with less poverty as well. Income inequality is bad for markets and hurts everyone, and is a huge factor in crime and happiness. There is much more incentive for workers to be involved and work harder in their workplace if they receive shares of the profits and not just a fixed wage. You claim that most people just want to be workers, but why would they not want to make more money for themselves that their own labor has contributed to? Why would they not want to have a say in the decisions that directly involve their own economic outcome?

Now look at how things were in the Spanish anarchy. Like in a free market, workers themselves were responsible to order the material they needed. They were in control and felt immediately responsible for the well-being of the people around them they know and love, providing enough motivation.

If you haven't read it, Pictures of the Socialistic Future, by Eugene Richter (https://mises.org/books/pictures_socialisticfuture_richter.pdf) paints an eerily accurate picture of what happened in Russia and East Germany under socialism. What makes it so disturbing is that it was written in 1893.

One of the principle problems was wage equality. Without premiums placed on high demand work, that work went wanting. The fact that the workers all got the same amount whether they busted their ass, or just did the bare minimum didn't help either.

Wage equality might work well in each individual shop, provided it was something like profit sharing. Service oriented jobs, such as waitressing, will not work well with wage equality, however. Historically, as soon as a restaurant started sharing tips, service in that restaurant went rapidly downhill. I've watched it happen.

How an individual business decides to disperse its profits is no real concern of mine, but if I get poor service, or a poor product, I will not be returning to that business. For some businesses, the coop or profit sharing method may work. In fact, it may be the best option. For others, it will surely doom that venture to failure.

In short, the market needs income inequality, as not all work is of the same value. In addition, an increase in income should be the result of your own effort, not that of your fellows'. And if equal rewards for unequal effort causes the effort to seek the lowest common denominator, things will not work well.

For one thing, the distribution of wealth in libertarian socialism only happens within the firm. So, workers in more successful fims may be paid more, and supply and demand may apply here to give weight to unwanted jobs. Really, the key difference is that there is no major wealth disparity between management and labor, as they are combined whenever possible. Pay within libertarian socialism firms is also usually paid in proportion to each person's labor.