Bitcoin Forum

Personnaly, I consider bitcoin to be the first serious candidate for an anarcho-capitalistic currency.

Now, searching the web for the concept of anarcho-capitalism, I've found this apparently famous quote from Noam Chomsky :

<<
    Anarcho-capitalism, in my opinion, is a doctrinal system which, if ever
    implemented, would lead to forms of tyranny and oppression that have few
    counterparts in human history. There isn't the slightest possibility that
    its (in my view, horrendous) ideas would be implemented, because they would
    quickly destroy any society that made this colossal error. The idea of
    "free contract" between the potentate and his starving subject is a sick
    joke, perhaps worth some moments in an academic seminar exploring the
    consequences of (in my view, absurd) ideas, but nowhere else.
>>


Well, somehow I agree that ancap could lead to some ugly things.  I doubt however that it would have no "counterparts in human history".  I think that, to some extend, roman empire can be considered as anarcho-capitalistic, for instance.

Anyway, whether or not anarcho-capitalism is evil is a huge subject, but somehow I think it's pretty much the same as wondering whether or not human beings are evil.  Anarcho capitalism gives individuals a huge power, for instance the power of letting people starve heartlessly.  But I also think it could lead to great things.  Anyway, I prefer the anarcho-capitalist perspective, rather than a bureaucratico-socialist world government.

The thing is :  I don't really know if humans are evil, but I'm one of them, and I know I'm not.  So I give others the benefit of the doubt.

I think for the most part people act as they were treated as children. A lot of people are controlling and manipulative because it is easy to treat your children like that.

The most controlling people end up trying to control me, I don't want this. I want to rule myself, I want to be my own leader. I have to be my own leader.

It is absurd to worry about what might happen to me if I am my own leader when I already know what my would be leaders want to do to me. They want to lock me in a cage and kill me if I try to get away from them. Talking about how bad it might be if we stop respecting them is crazy. Yes, we will have problems to solve. It will be challenging, exciting, and fun.

I like the way you express that.  It's quite exactly how I see it. "Challenging, exciting, and fun".  It will also probably be more dangerous, but I don't care.  If danger is the price to pay not to live in the jail they are buiding around us, so be it.

I'm glad. So many people want other people to raise their guns as soon as someone mentions a problem. It's absurd and awful and evil.

Not exactly responding to the quote, but I think humans are inherently evil. To be realistic, it's hardwired into our DNA from millions of years of survival of the fittest. Where you only lived if you fought for your stay. Living peaceful in society is nature vs. nurture. Forager vs. farmer. We are still inherently selfish and egotistical, but being nurtured in a community where we need to give in order to take, most people have learned to control their evolutionary predispositions.

My view is broad and not based on Bitcoin  but I do not believe it or any other cryptocurrency to be a threat to society, only to government because they would lack the control they always desire.

Do you really think you have better survival chances being mean and aggressive? Are you familiar with Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene"? Consider that everyone you meet has most of the same genes as you and that the genes in your body are more interested in reproducing copies of themselves than copies of you. Helping you reproduce  accomplishes their ends, but so does helping others to thrive since they have copies of the exact same genes. There is no sound evolutionary argument for being evil.

Fit doesn't mean evil. Fit means doing what works and there are mountains of evidence that attacking people doesn't 'work'.

Well, I wasn't quite right when I said that whether or not anarcap is evil depends on whether or not humans are evil.  It's rather a matter of whether or not their evil part is stronger than their good part.  The question is :  can farmers organize a private force to protect them, without letting this force get enough power to enslave them ?

Honnestly I don't know, but I think we can't blame them for trying.

What humans are you talking about? We have had to struggle throughout the generations, sure, for survival, yes. But don't confuse that with being 'evil'. Societies have always struggled to keep their keens safe, and while the concept of 'society' is a little too wide, and may mean the world, a country, a town or a home, the basic thing here is that all the 'evil doing' that is hardwired on our DNAs is actually just survival instinct.

We have, however, learned to be self conscious of our belongings to a point we not only have no desire to share them, but we actually want to take everyone elses. But this is a new thing, a taught thing, not hardwired in any way, in my opinion. I hold no degree in evolutionary theories, and I pride myself of being very much unaware of all that goes around in the world as a whole, but I do know that if it wasn't for the 'bottom line' people would do their best to have their surroundings prosper, as that would make them prosper too, and it has been that way for a long time, but somehow, with democracy as a form of control, laws that are not chosen nor vetoed by the people, currencies that serve no purpose but to control wealth and monitor habits, it just got lost along the way.

Now, having said all that I must add that I don't have a viable alternative, hence I don't 'struggle the system'. I live in my own system as much as I possibly can, and feel very good about it. Bitcoins were a wonderful addition to said personal system, along with all the new knowledge I've been acquiring on the fora.

If we can't do ancap because people are evil, how exactly are we better off letting evil people tell us what to do? And if the 'fittest' are the most evil then won't we be amplifying the problem by magnifying those evil people?

Or we could have a democracy, where a bunch of evil people choose their evil ruler?

Sure, that's all I meant. Survival instinct. At times when humans were struggling from meal to meal, not even close to an organized society, it was a necessity to be the "baddest motherfucker" in town. If you weren't, you'd starve. In that sense, I feel humans are naturally more evil than peaceful because we needed that in order to survive. Peace, outside our own group or family, didn't come until we realized people had stuff we wanted. Either way, it's still selfish.

Obviously nowadays democracy has indeed become inacceptable, for it has legalized theft, and only a small minority of bureaucrats and technocrats really benefit from it, by stealing people's fruit of labor, in order to maintain their way of life.

Anarcap is scary, but we just can't accept the direction social-democracies are taking.

Considering that democracy is obviously evil with three people in a room or 300 million I don't think it's right to say "nowadays" as if the last few decades or something is the first time people have voted themselves other people's labor and freedom.

In case it isn't clear to everyone, rape, murder, and theft don't change their nature because over half (well, try 20% actually) of people vote to call them taxes and a justice system. Not any more than I can justly "punish" a lone guest who comes to my house when my wife and I outvote him. If someone wants to tell me where the democromagic begins number wise I'd love to hear the justification.

the most evil thing I've seen bitcoin do thus far is draw far too much of my attention to the bitcoin forum.

Yeah, I suppose I got a little off topic.

Bitcoin could be used to do evil things. You could use bitcoin to pay your evil henchmen when they get tired of fiat. You could buy a gun and shoot a child.

But the gun and the bitcoin were not evil, only you were.

Bitcoin isn't any kind of "istic". It's just a tool.

Even in its spirit, it differs from anarcho-capitalist principles in some subtle ways.

Anarcho-capitalism is based on the notions of private property and voluntary, but binding contracts.

Bitcoin's most intuitive form of usage is based on divulgation, gamerism, and reputation. Not property and contracts.

It is a tool indeed.  But I think it is THE tool anarcap needs in order to become reality.

Since it exists it will be used. I think it's hard to say whether there is any other route at all.

The bitcoin economy and the community give me the warm fuzzies.  ;)

Beside, I think we're dedicated to more of the principle Voluntarism rather than anarcho-capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is just the inevitable implementation of voluntarism.

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on whats for dinner. The funny thing is the state doesnt actually exist,people just think it does - which has many parallels with religion. God in this case is not the ultimate ruler it is the state which has taken this position. Any system which has the power to take your labour and kill you if you refuse to give it up is inherently evil.



Political language that conceal what is really going on include such things as "jurisdiction" "constitution" "nation" "state" "license" "court" "law" "statute" "arrest" "contempt".

"A customer is free to choose a service whereas a victim has no choice" - Marc Stevens.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhw7HBJpNYY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jhw7HBJpNYY)

It's important to remember, when quoting Noam Chomsky, that he is an Anarchist himself.  He's an Anarcho-socialist, so he's not arguing for beaurocracy or state socialism or anything of the sort.  He's arguing for Anarcho socialism as opposed to anarcho capitalism because he doesn't feel anarcho capitalism is really possible.

I'm also an Anarcho socialist and I see bitcoin as a definite plus for anarchists in general, no matter what our economic views.  I think Chomsky would probably agree.

Chomsky the "anarchist" that constantly demands bigger government. What a joke.

I am discovering now a lot of really good left-liberatarian philosophers. Why do people focus on this guy? He is a joke. For example, he demands higher taxes on the rich while at the same time he is rich and has his money in a fiscal paradise to avoid paying taxes... He is very good with linguistics and he uses it as a charlatan.

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

I am SO looking forward to see an anarcho-socialist answer this question...

Edit:  there is obviously an answer in the anarchism FAQ :
<<
I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
>>

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Personnaly, I'm not convinced.

I like to ask people advocating removing my property rights what are they going to do if I refuse?
This makes them no better than the worse statists imo. They all just want to grab the gun in the room and use it to get their own way.

The other day I got a $300 fine for not having my seatbelt on and driving off in my car. The police would say they are doing a good thing   - and to prove how good they are if I refuse to pay that imposition they are able to come into my house,kill me,my family or pets and destroy my property if I refuse to pay-all because I didnt immediately obey their arbitrary regulations.
When are people going to see that its all a con job?

Arguments are soldiers not meant to be stabbed in the back. Pretty much every human beings, even anarcho-capitalists, have a series of self-reinforcing beliefs. It's like building a strong unshakable foundation. These communists have formidable suit of armor to penetrate through.

In any case, I don't see how homelessness, unemployment, poverty, can be destroyed by the elimination of property. I thought western civilization in general are having higher standard of living.

Just a few weeks ago, my family got a really big TV that can also do 3D.

That's clearly an insufficient argument since you could get rid of 100% of crime by killing everyone.

And how the &$#^ are they going to get rid of property without committing property crime? And if property crime is okay, then there goes that reason for getting rid of it.

Well, what about mutualism? Its socialism and anarchism, and I am finding it ok. I might not agree with everything, but at least it makes sense, its coherent and has realistic views. But Chomsky is just charlatanery. Apart from being cautivated by his beautiful words I dont know why some people worship this guy. All he says and writes is beautiful nonsense. Anyone capable of minimal reasoning can see it. The best thing socialist can do is distance themselves from this joke.

Indeed.  The thing is, in their society, a person like me would be considered as a criminal, for I would defend what I would consider to be the fruit of my labour.  I wouldn't let those damn hippies take what I've been working for.  Thus, they would have either to fight against me, and to do so they might need an organised force, either to let me live apart with other people who believe in property right.

I don't think voluntary socialism is wrong or evil. It's only bad in the sense that it will really suck without a group of non-socialists to leach off of.

I can actually be a little more positive about socialism I guess. My family is completely socialistic. It works well because each of us likes the others about as much as we like ourselves. Also we are in very close open communication all the time, so we can allocate resources pretty well without prices.

So the next step toward large scale socialism is polygamy.

I would be much less baffled by anarcho-socialists if they simply said "In a society where force is not tolerated at all socialism will arise" then I would want to hear why they thought that, what the voluntary transition to it would be, etc. But when they say things like "Property is theft" it just makes no sense. Property is theft... so if I get some propery... you are going to take it?

It is worse than that though. If you make something and they take it now they are breaking their rule of not possessing things. It is just straight contradictory.

If they answer that they'll just let you be, then it's really clear to me that people will chose to have some things and give some things, and that's capitalism*.

*not corporate fascistic government sponsored capitalism, but simply the having of capital that you created or traded for.

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103809/hippie-infestation

just kidding, ok :)

Hippies are annoying, but harmless people.

It gets to a point where the lines between socialism and capitalism gets diluted.

Mutualists define capitalism from a historic (with marxian influence) perspective. Therefore capitalism is what happened in Europe after the industrial revolution. So basically for the mutualists capitalism means state capitalism or corporate capitalism.

Mutualism is defined as free market anticapitalism or free market socialism. I really dont care what you define yourself, as long as you defend some kind of free market with some kind of realistic property system. Mutualist in reality dont defend strict property but more of a exclusive use system. They defend that a property becomes unowned if the owner has not used for a long time, as opposed to anarcho-capitalist that are more strict with property.

Take all this with a grain of salt since I have just started looking into mutualism.

If someone has not used something for a long time, it might be because he doesn't need it anymore.

In that case, one could probably buy this thing for a relatively low price, instead of just stealing it.

Moreover, it's not because someone hasn't been using something for a long time, that he doesn't have any intention to do so in the future.  You're not in his head, and you don't know his investment strategies.  Again, instead of claiming this thing is not his property anymore, you should offer a price to buy it.  If you were right by assuming that he doesn't need it, then the price will be low.

I did not say that they are right, its just what I got from the little I have read about mutualism.

But saying that since someone does not need something he/she is going to sell it cheap its a stretch. Moreover the mutualists really dont have problem with little owners. What mutualists mainly have problem and strongly denounce is the property acquired through unjust means, for example property acquired using aggressive force or government subsidies or favors. They claim that the big parts of land that are now unused are due to the government interference and not due to a free market process. I happen to agree with this last part, and I like the strong stance on unjust acquired land. I think that the rest of the market anarchists schools and even minarchists should denounce this issue more.

Again, my understanding of mutualism is still superficial so my opinions could not be exactly accurate.

If I build things and give some of them away that doesn't make it part socialism and part capitalism. I decide what to do with all of my property, giving it away is one of my uses for it. Maybe the word "capitalism" has to go, but for whatever reason it just means free market capitalism to me. It seems really obvious that a little bit of freedom doesn't make you free and a little bit of capitalism isn't capitalism. But if most people are using a word differently then I can change, as long as it's consistent.


There isn't some perfect platonic form of property and there will obviously be legitimate disputes. The question is how they will be resolved. If some group of people want to pick some list of arbitrary lengths of time for various items to lose their property-ness I think they'll do badly, but they can try it out and see. Long story short whatever people agree to is fine, if they don't agree they don't have to associate.

The entire world has become a series of slave plantations with each region having its own masters and slaves. There is no point moving elsewhere because that just swaps one master for another. Seasteading ftw.

Yeah. Socialism in reality or at least for academic socialists (or whatever) is defined as a system of values where equality is the base and basic needs are covered for everyone (including food, shelter, etc...). How this is achieved is not defined, so its basically a set of beautiful promises (which is very useful from a marketing point of view, but not very realistic). Then there are different theories on how to get there. Mutualists just happen to think that the free market is the best way to achieve this ends. Again, all this comes from my little understanding of the subject, but I think I got it right.

So you see, if mutualists want a free market because that way they can achieve their socialistic ends and an-caps want a free market because they value it as the best way of living or the most moral or whatever... then they both defend the same, just with different objectives (maybe, because an an-cap can personally value equality as a favorable outcome). This is why I am telling you the line between capitalism and socialism gets blurred. Certainly mutualists will favour cooperatives and local commerce, while an-caps (maybe) will favour whatever its more efficient, but at the end they both accept playing in a free market.

The other socialist anarchists dont make sense at all to me. It seems just like nonsense with totally unrealistic views of the world, specially the economy. The anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist want to impose a monetary system based on the hour standard (the hour as in time) but they say its not a monetary standard, and then they want to stablish a market to exchange the goods based on this hour standard, but saying that its not a market... And then you have the primitivists that want to stop using technology... I am finding mutualism ok, but it goes downhill very quickly from there.


Yes. Its a dangerous line to define the validity of property in subjective terms.

I have hope to set up some sort of libertarian city-state in some place in Africa. There was a project to do exactly this in Madagascar. Some libertarian economists had talked with the president there to set up some special charter in some place to start a libertarian city (similar idea to Hong Kong). The key is that with a small tariff for the host country, it would be very profitable for them because all the activity the city would generate, and would be also very advantageous for the citizens that moved there since they could govern themselves and pay a very small tax only. The Madagascar president had accepted this and they were negotiating the terms, when there was a revolution. I wish I had the link were I read this.

If something like this actually happened I think that there is a big chance that a libertarian society could expand around Africa. Because the city would thrive and surely other people would copy the initiative, also the natives would copy the structure and could be influenced and educated, etc...

If something like this is stablished seriously I would go live there.

So he makes something and doesn't give it to me.  um, so?  Why should he be punished for that?  It's his thing, he made it.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is ridiculous.  Anarcho Capitalism is not possible, it has never existed and the closest society has ever come to it (Somalia) is a really awful place to live by all accounts.  Anarcho-Socialism meanwhile has existed on several occasions, admittedly it was always militarially crushed by authoritarian socialism, but that is not an inherent flaw in the system, it's just that the Anarchists picked the wrong allies.  Black Ukraine and the Anarchist regions of Spain were pretty nice places to live by all accounts too.

That's a problem for Anarchists of any stripe.  Moreso for An-caps than An-socs in my opinion since An-soss usually assume crime will be handled by the community while an-caps usually believe the community is a form of government and that crime should be handled by private security companies (which, for some reason, are NOT a form of government)

There's some obvious confusion here between personal property and private property.  Socialists are not opposed to personal property.  Even Authoritarian stalinist socialists are not opposed to personal property.  That is the things which you personally own and can personally hold and/or defend.  Socialists, especcially Anarchist socialists, are opposed to private property.  That is those things which you own only because the law says you own them, you cannot personally hold and defend them.  As soon as you start hiring other people to hold and defend your private property you have established a government and are acting against Anarchist principles.

your house is personal property,  a house that you rent to bring in income is private property.  Obviously you cannot personally defend both your own house and a rental property.

Bitcoin is not Anarcho-capitalist its more socialist as its based on the trust system. It's a start to show people that the days of bartering and gift economy can work again and there is no need for centralized banks. This is a start towards abolishing money in all forms towards a more Utopian Anarcho-communist society.

Hopefully you guys are not trolls and are up for an honest debate.


There has been more examples of anarcho-capitalism than Somalia. In fact, Somalia is not the best example of an anarcho-capitalist society. Also, about Somalia, their conditions have improved during their anarchist phase. Under anarchy Somalia has become the region with the cheapest telephone rates in all Africa, the one where agricultural and kettle production has grown faster, etc... You obviously are not going to turn a shithole into a paradise in some years. But the fact is that the conditions have improved.

I have also read about the anarcho-communist communities in Spain. First of all, they were short-lived, so conclusions about them should be taken with a grain of salt since nobody knows how they would have evolved. But you say they were "pretty nice places to live by all accounts"... but you dont talk how the political comites that were formed were regulating moral issues like sex and even alcohol drinking for their members. And they were strict about it (some of them, there were many types of communities). But again, the experiences are not very conclusive (for good or for bad) because they were short lived.


Its the other way around. Its the anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist that tend to be democratic.


This is a better definition of personal/private property than the traditional communist, but is still weak. What if you can not defend your house? What if you rent a room?


mmmm, where does anarcho-capitalism opposes a trust system? Not only it does not oppose it, but anarcho-capitalism relies in a trust system.


Money appeared naturally from bartering. Why do you think it wont happen again? In fact, a system of money (or at least a free market money) is a system of barter. It just happens that people always barter their goods against one good, and for that reason that good receives the name of money. Its convinient, why do you think it wont happen again?

Also, ignoring that money does a lot of good for humans is not wise. Without money the coordination of production would be impossible and people would be much poorer. Specialization would not be possible and that means no modern science like medicine or physics.


Again, if you are trolls or dont care about honest debate dont bother answering.

There is not a well-defined difference. 

If I can get hold of someones toothbrush then they clearly could not defend it therefore it was private property. If they try to get it back with assistance from anyone this just secures my claim, so if I am bigger, I win.

OTOH, if a have big steel doors with 32bit codes and a completely automated factory then I can have huge amounts of capital as my legitamate personal property. But if you keep trespassers out of your garden by paying locals with vegetables then you have a government defending your capital?

I'm going to guess that Stalin was totally down with a distinction like this because he could at whim determine which was which in any case that concerned him. Making up false distinctions and backing them with force is evil.


As a matter of fact the place I am living in is 100% both. It would be virtually impossible to defend the part lived in by the owner without defending the parts used for rental income. I'd like to know also how long the homeowner can be away before I can morally stop paying rent. He's actually been gone for 3 weeks and won't be back for another, does this somehow change our agreement?

As a general principle would you say that all the things a person legitimately owns have to be in the same physical location?

Bitcoin is specifically designed so that users don't have to trust or even know each other so I don't know what you are meaning by that.

In my opinion capitalism is the most natural law after anarchism.

When you agree that anything people find or create should be their property unless superseded by a contract or existing ownership, then capitalism necessarily follows.

If you leave off the last part and just say anything people find or create should be their property, you have anarchism: in essence, it is saying, whatever you have is yours until someone else takes it; then it is theirs.

I think you are very wrong.  Bitcoin is certainly not a way to abolish money.  Rather, it is a ultra-modern form of money.  It is about as communist as gold can be.  And I doubt gold is a communist money.

Don't confuse capitalism with banking system.  Basically capitalism is the right of ownership.  Bitcoin is a money that is way more difficult to steal than other forms of money.  It is therefore not socialist.  At all.

Not all forms of socialism reject money. Remember socialism is a set of goals, not a set of policies (whether you think this goals are important or possible is another matter).

Btw, Rothbard convinced the communist party of the USA to include the gold standard in their program :D

I consider the goal of socialism to be incompatible with my individualist worldview.

I am not opposed to community, having social relations, charities, and things like that.

I'll organize a society of mutual friendship and mutual help as much as I'll organize venture for personal wealth.

Well I just don't like capitalism as it exploits people.
If there could be a system where you make all the fish you can store them in a community store house and with that you can take as much bread wine and salt as you want because you did your job.
If certain people try to beat the system and take more give non then the rest of the community will say your on your own no more fish for you unless you make your share of bread.
BitCoin shows that we don't need money in the sense of a piece of paper that some big man printed and decided the value but that we the people control it like a union should control a factory.

Bitcoin is a free market currency, not controlled by some annoying union in a factory.

And I do not like other people telling me that some capitalist is exploiting my labor. Butt out.

I am amused by this debate.  However well entertained I may be, there is no political ideology that reflects upon Bitcoin or vice versa.  There are likely to be some political structures that are encouraged, and other discouraged, by the widespread use of Bitcoin; but Bitcoin itself is neither good nor evil.  It is simply a modern tool of commerce.  The intent is not in it's design, but in it's users.

That said, any debate about the relative merits of ideologies is futile, as participants are (almost certainly) not using the same definitions.

And there is a difference between Capitalism (an economic ideology) and capitalism (an economic term that generally describes a set of economic laws operating in smooth conjuction without outside influences).  IMHO, Anarcho-Capitalism is as unlikely a long term possibility as is Anarcho-Socialism, and Anarcho-capitalism is just anarchy in it's natural state, and just as short lived.  I am not an anarchist of any flavor; because even though I can accept that a large minority of the population could thrive without any government beyond self-government and self-disipline, there will always be another minority of the population that craves and clamors for a perception of order in an otherwise (apparently) disorderly world.  In every case wherein anarchy became dominate, there were always those who would choose to take advantage of (or sow) disorder for personal gains, which would lead to the public clamoring for a more authoritarian government.  The case of anarchy leading to a peaceful, lasting social contract with limited governance is exceedingly rare.  So you young ones should temper your enthusiasm, for I have lived long enough to know that 'abolish and replace' of government is a risky endeavor.

Amen. The French Revolution. Why the French celebrate it again?

Not because the French did any sort of anarchy(They did not) but because it's a revolution that gone completely bunker.

That was one of the examples that I was thinking of.  In the modern world, the only definitive examples of limited government emerging out of anarchy that I can think of are the United States after the Constitution was ratified (i.e. the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy that any nation could have maintained, and the framers had already determined that the Articles would lead to an early break-up of the Union, which is why the Constitution was promoted to begin with) and the Swiss.

Yes, there was anarchy; but it was a short lived, and particularly hostile, form of national anarchy.  Which led to France being taken over by a short dictator for a while.  We always think of the German Nazis as the worst example of collective madness, but the Germans still don't have anything on the French.

Yes, the Nazis were terrifying as well. For that reason alone, I distrust democracies.

But Lord Acton said it best, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The American were privileged to have George Washington, who gave up his power.

(For the record, I am heavily influenced by my history professor's lecture on the French revolution)

WHAT THE FUCK True democracy is one person one vote. I hope you mean representative democracy.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

nuff said

I do not trust them at all, or anybody, or even myself. That is why I am an anarchist.

Some anarchists (usually social anarchists) have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues. The Young Communist League, USA in particular refers to representative democracy as "bourgeois democracy," implying that they see direct democracy as "true democracy."

I also don't believe in consensus decision-making.

Rather, voluntarism is the driving principle of my life. I don't need your permission, but all I need not to do is not act out of violence or aggressions against others.

Any kind of democracy, "consensus decision-making", or any type of government entails some group of people forcing their will on some other group of people. They all violate property rights and are therefore immoral.

Fair enough for me.
In today's common society you must obey the law and its rulers however wrong they are, but I love to spread anarchy with little things free hugs downtown, free food to the homeless, finding ways to get stuff for free (dumpster diving, shoplifting) and most of all showing others they can do the same.

I have to agree with theymos.  Personnaly I think sesessionism is the only way to solve this.  If minority can't accept to obey to majority, then there has to be separation, or war.

And I would consider shoplifting to be a form of theft.

What we have today is  not capitalism it is corporatism or soft fascism and the governement itself is a corporation which hands out favours to other corporations. Corporations now control the gun in the room of government and have taken over.Witness the disgusting spectacle of the banking bailouts in which the less wealthy are forced to pay off the misdeeds and corruption of large corporations. The bankers get trillions of dollars while the countries infrastructure falls apart and communities are crushed by debt. The elite are like giant fat bloated mosquitos sucking out all the value and destroying the middle class which they hate with a vengeance.

Capitalism is not the problem it is corruption and greed. When you design a system of giving men power over other men it will attract the ones who want to use it for their own ends. A business by itself cant do anything but please its customers or fail. A business in control of the reigns of power can force customers to use its services and have no consequences of failure. Witness GM Holden and Wall Street.

From a large corporation, a purely profit driven enterprise, faceless and cruel.
Most don't have unions, minimum wages and ignore the cries of employees.
The producer of the item being liberated is already payed in full.

Shoplifting is not anarchy it is criminality. In a voluntary society such things would be punished more harshly than they are now imo. The government is theft so to steal makes you no better than them. The real path to liberty is personal secession.

ie Ghandi

In short Bitcoin is not evil.
At most its good or slightly better as it is an alternative to the evil central banking scene that runs our world.
Money I personally think is unnecessary to life. Thus I'm an anarcho-communist, but this is a step forward.

The problem is that we let a bunch of people use force to do business.  We are even stupid enough to pay them for doing so.  We even elect them, and consider them as "great men", or "leaders".

Have you ever known what it like to be a poor farmer? My father was a farmer back in Vietnam before we came to the states.

On the contrary, we're wealthier than ever before. Whatever lowly position my father hold today, it is a blessing. We didn't make much, but that's alright.

I count the bigass 3D TV, speedy internet, computers, and books, amongst my blessing.

But you decided that minimum wage is not enough. And you know what? I am unemployed as a teen. It took me a while to find a freelancing job. That, I graciously accepted for little pay. You, on the other hand, have the audacity to decide who is and who is not being exploited.

I despise that.

This kind of incorrect thinking is caused mainly by ignorance of economics, I think.


In anarcho-capitalism, you'd probably have to pay your own defense agency a huge amount of money to convince them to keep such an idiot under their protection.

Why do you think the biggest most powerful unions are government worker ones? Unions don't do squat for workers they eventually become overly beauracratic and the companies pay off the union reps to lobby on their behalf.

The best idea is to not have a state  interfering in individual bargaining between free people. Giant corporations can get away with it because they can afford to bribe politicians.

Highly paid parasites that sucks up whatever jobs was left.

Correct but a union is better then non.

I agree.Their giant salaries preclude the hiring of more people. Regulations and compliance costs drive up business costs and cause the same outcome.

A union is only good when its a union of individuals. Once the majority can vote to rule the minority it always fails because a group can not have more rights than each individual in that group.

My faith in the future of humanity, and in particular the Millinial Generation, is again renewed and rewarded.  I have faith that, should my generation fail to fix Social Security and the social nets of America, as those who have come before have failed; the Millinials will simply destroy the welfare state by whatever means neccessary.

It seems we both don't know each others stories.

I am currently a teenager with no job.
Before you start accusing me of living of my parents.
My parents where decently living in Poland before we moved here 16 years ago. They had good jobs (Teacher and Programmer) and a house and where able to support doing almost whatever they felt like.
Now that we moved to Canada.
My mom works 50 cents above minimum wage and several illegal jobs. My fathers bust his ass in a factory just to pay the mortgage.
I steal my neighbors Wifi, dumpster dive and shoplift. I also have 3 younger siblings. At school we have fundraisers that I cannot afford to take part of. Such as casual Fridays because it costs 15 bucks a year. I share alot of books and other stuff with my friends who are also politically anarchocollectivist/anarchosyndicalist. To me I know that we dont live in poverty but this is not how each person should live on the world. That is why I hate capitalism.

Just wanted to clear that up so you don't think I'm a 40 year old guy who has no one to feed and claims he can fix the world.

I think we have found the disconnect.  Canada isn't a capitalist society, it's a social market democracy like many in Europe.  You're blaming capitalism for problems not caused by it.

What were taxes in Poland like? If the state takes 70 per cent of your money its no wonder people cant afford things.

My parents pay the mortgage too and my mom just doesn't make all that much. We're in the same socialeconomic status, but we hang out with entirely different folks.

I hang out with hackers and geeks, all of which tend to be oriented toward libertarianism. This has lead me to a very different understanding of the world.

The situation isn't exactly analogous to be sure. My relatives own two nail shops. They're rising in socialeconomic status. My family does, with my sis finished her college education.

The Vietnamese people tend to integrate politically well. They also tend to be vehemently anti-communists. They also happen to own supermarket, nail shop, saloon, etc. They are a very entrepreneurial people. I think entrepreneurial traits is very consistent with immigrant populations in the United States.

Even so, hackers start all sort of startups these days, not just work for pointy haired boss. It's very hard to say "I hate capitalism" in that environment, in that philosophical framework. It just doesn't make sense. Even if I am poor as dirt, I have a future, I can advance, and help make the world a better place.

Agreed. The reason for your impoverishment is due to the quasi-socialist government parasite sucking the wealth out of the economy with burdensome regulation on business, redistribution of wealth and a bloated corrupt bureaucracy which wastes social resources and produces nothing. The best thing is a truly free market and a small, limited scope government.

I recommend the work of Milton Friedman. Check out his documentary series "Free To Choose", where he outlines the failings of socialism and government interference in the economy/markets.

Why did your parents move from Poland to Canada?

By the way, you might like this: http://c4ss.org/

EDIT: If you dont mind sharing.

I will just leave this here ;)
http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/bestsellers-2007/645-1.jpg

Very true.

The system we have here is also very deceptive. It is a double-headed snake.

We have a constitutional monarchy (Common Law) that operates upon the 'Dominion of Canada' ('Dominions' are always under empires. The 'British Empire' in our case. The dominion was never properly federated.), and the sovereign provinces. The people on the lands invest their sovereignty with the queen/king in exchange for certain protections that are outlined in the Magna Charta (and the Bill of Rights). The protections are universal. Kind of like the USA's constitutional republic. (Limiting power is always a good idea.)

We have a queen "in trust". The "governor general" is our viceroy (latin for "in place of king"). Essentially she's a trustee. She holds the queen's power on our lands over here. We don't get to vote her in. The queen appoints the governor general.

Our 'overlords' (sarcasm) realized that they could not control the free men/women very well so they incorporated "CANADA". (Do an EDGAR search on sec.gov for CANADA if you don't believe me.). CANADA was incorporated in Delaware. (I have the filings if anyone wants them.) They then offered social security, welfare, and passed legal tender statutes. (This should sound familiar.)

Each new birth (humans are born, not "birthed"), is incorporated (more accurately, it is a trust corporation) under "CANADA". Under this corporate system (our version of a democracy) our rights are given to us as a privilege. We are told we are free, but we are under debt slavery. Our sweat equity floats a bond that is used to borrow money against. This money is injected into the general economy.

As it stands today every province is a corporation, every police "service" (no thanks), every city, and every court.

The corruption is even deeper than this. We have more than one corporation for many Canadian cities. They are often incorporated here, and in some US state. When someone pays a traffic ticket where is the money going? Probably to the corporation in the USA. It keeps it off the books in Canada so they can borrow even more from banks and enslave us all further. And I digress... :P

I see (your opinions may differ) the corporate/democracy layer over my lands as a complete scam. The Common Law system still exists, but unfortunately, less and less people know how to use it, and less and less courts seem to want to even deal with it.

To quote a great man: "Our forefathers made a nation and we inherited a corporation".

I'm not a troll,  I've been a part of the bitcoin forums for a while and intend to stick around for a while yet.  I don't check in all that often so don't always respond quickly.

Defending one's fields by having neighbors assist in defending them and paying with vegetables is community action, that is at the heart of Anarchist thought (at least Anarcho Socialist thought) but it does mean that in a certain way the fields belong to all of the neighbors.  Holding a giant compound with security doors meanwhile, I don't know that I can address that properly.  I suppose that so long as you are not using that control to exert power over your neighbors there is really nothing wrong with it.

I hoped and expected you would be okay with those actions. Now if some neighbors don't like vegetables and trade them for something else is that okay? What if you trade the veggies fist and give them what they want directly?

Sounds good to me.

Anarchists of any stripe are generally not opposed to markets.  I know I am not.  Where I would have a problem is if someone manages to get a group together to control enough of the fields that people locally are unable to feed themselves without accepting the terms that are dictated by that person.  At that point a government has arisen.

Okay, sorry for taking it so slowly, I expected you to have some sort of problem with markets and I wanted to pin down exactly when trading things for labor (even guarding) became bad.

There are plenty of self described anarchists that are opposed to markets though. From what I gather they are not just opposed to some of the current particular 'markets' but actually oppose ownership and trade. I think they are confused, but that's what they think right now.

There is no government. There are simply people who are willing to initiate violence (or advocate for it) and those who are not. I am against all initiation of force, and will be after governments are disintegrated. It just so happens that right now most force is government force so thats what I care about.

Lately I'm learning that people advocate or use force and coercion because it was used on them as children. I am particularly appalled by the use of force on children. Voluntary education is good, forced education is bad. Voluntary sex is good, forced sex is bad.

I was not pretending to say it otherwise, and I am happy to be in the bitcoin project with everyone. Hope that is clear.

Now that we have taken that out of the way I honestly think that your definitions are too subjective or vague. "control to exert power over your neighbors" can be interpreted in a multitude of ways. Its very opinable. To support something I need a clearer explanation on how things would work.

I do think that violence is sometimes unavoidable.  That includes the initiation of violence as opposed to the use of it in defense.  I think it should be avoided if possible, but there are times when it cannot be.  Also, what is perceived as violence varies based on a person's perspective.

For example, if all of the fields in an area are owned by one man, we'll call him mister farmer, and he pays those that labor in his fields barely enough to get by for their labor, while demanding exorbitant prices from those that work in other ways for the products of the fields.  Not to get into the nature of ownership, since in this case it is largely a legal construct in any case.  If a group of people from the local area come and start farming those fields without Mr. Farmer's permission and redistribute the vegetables thus produced to feed themselves from Mr. Farmer's point of view that is initiation of force against his property.  However from the point of view of those people it is Mr. Farmer and his employees (who are, presumably, paid to defend his fields) that are initiating force by physically preventing them from farming food and feeding themselves.

I identify as Anarcho-communist because I feel that the engines of economy and social justice are best situated at the small community level, not at the individual level and also not at the level of states. 

To Hugo, If I am compelling behavior from someone through threats to their physical well being then I am exerting control over him.   Whether I am doing so through a threat of physical violence or through control of the things that he needs in order to survive is, to me, fairly irrelevant.

I don't know if sb already said that and im too lazy to check, but money itself in any form is not "evil" nor "good".

It is what the people do with the money that is either good or evil.

Thing is :  bitcoin is not just a currency amongst other currencies.  Bitcoin is a form of money that can't be taxed.

Keynes called gold "the barbareous relic".  Imagine what he would say about bitcoins.  ;)

Bitcoins CAN be taxed. Tax evasion can happen in any currency, easier or harder, but can happen.

What makes bitcoin different from dollars or any other important currency is that its a voluntary currency, and therefore it wont be inflationary.It will keep the natural market rates and avoid the boom and bust cycles.

Yeah, the way taxation usually goes is, "Give me money or I'll hurt you" "Okay, here you go"

+1

We live in barbaric times.

More like moronic times.

And inflations have a tendency to end empires.

The US should never have been an empire to start with.  I would say that the end of the US empire is a good thing in the long run, but we live in the short run.  It will be a better nation for those who survive the short run, even if the federal union fails and states break apart.  The best state to live in under such a breakup is probably Texas.  I'm probably too old to see the end of such a conflict, myself, and would just bail on the whole nation and retire to some English speaking third world country.

And it will, again. BTW:

1. 1929 (Great depression) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression
2. 1970 (EDIT: 1973) (Oil crisis) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis
3. 2010 ?? ??
4. Profit !

Am I the only one that notices a pattern here ? A mega-crisis every 40 years perhaps ?
I myself have a theory that inflationary & fiat money economy causes crisises regularly every X years, because every X years the bubble pumped by government & massive speculation has to explode. You can't pump a baloon forever, it has to blow some time.

IMHO the "current" mega-crisis is either a little late, or has already started. The second is more probable.
I wonder if this is the one that will end USA imperialism.

EDIT:
Actually, current crisis is not late at all. As the oil crisis happened in 1973, not in 1970, we should still have at least 2 years until it hits...
So... 2012 ? :D

As somebody already said, capitalism is not the reason of Your troubles.
Currently, there are almost NO capitalistic countries in the world.

Canada is a demo-socialist country, and so is now Poland (i know, i come from there). The last known fully capitalistic country was probably USA in the XIX century. After that, it is only more and more socialism.
However, the Poland which You escaped from, was more capitalistic than either Canada or today's Poland, which by the way perfectly explains, why You are now so poor that You have to steal to live while you had so good life in the "old" Poland.

16 years ago, just after gaining independence, Poland had very small bureaucracy and was a very capitalistic country. Then came the regulations....

No, you are not the only one.  You just stumbled onto Forth Turning social theory, but the full cycle is 80-88 years.  It's a well researched, and little known, theory about generational cycles.  Well worth a read, very enlightening.

Kongratiev maybe ?