Bitcoin Forum

More right leaning? left leaning?  For me its reaffirmed my libertarian stance.

What about you guys?

I went straight from a democrat to an anarchist in a matter of a few months; honestly, I blame myrkul :D

Not really.

If something maybe even more to left. I can't just understand how stupid our current monetary system is...

i have to admit that i voted for obama both times. i gave him a pass for not going after bank/wall street execs, but the last straw for me was when he sent the hammer down on snowden, whom i believe is 100% innocent. julian assange, on the other hand, i found to be more seedy.

anyways, the whole snowden issue was an eye opener for me. obama wants state police, and he wants to spread the american hegemony across the world. i won't be voting for a democrat again.

Assange is a weird case. But, if Sweden is in it it's just one more example of hegemony, he isn't even a citizen after all.

Is has renewed my beliefs in:

Personal freedom

Private property and

Sound money

So you're more conservative now?

i don't get why libertarians are supposed to be more conservative? if anything, they are more conservative on fiscal policy, but for social issues they are definitely liberal. a lot of conservatives label themselves as libertarians, but they are just conservatives.

I'm still getting over the fact that liberal means the opposite of what it used to mean and so we had to invent an entirely new word for the concept.

So you're saying that liberals and libertarians are cut from the same cloth? That's preposterous, anyone can tell just from the way their names are spelled that liberals and libertarians are complete polar opposites.

Liberals want people to be free to do what they want as long as the government doesn't say no, and libertarians want people to be free to do what a responsible and prudent business would do to help their government keep tax low.

haha, former right-winger here.  So glad to meet you in the middle, friend!  I made the journey in the years leading up to Bitcoin.

Labels... labels everywhere...  :-X

Don't be so cynical, political labels are much more important than the logic or the principles that give them meaning.

Always been far-leftist on economics and far-right in other things. Bitcoin and this community made me more positive about libertarianism. Libertarianism is not for me but probably I found a solution to USA.

What was the defining moment when you realized you were an anarchist?

Sure, just vote for a third party candidate, and become no more or less than a useful idiot for the Great Diviser.   And IIRC, Obama clearly stated in his first election that he wanted a 'civilian police force', as strong as the military.

The problem was that people did not hear what was clearly being said.  I think they believed somehow in their own hopes and aspirations for a better world, and externalized those into an individual with no actual content - Obama.

He's basically destroyed the Democratic party, turning it into a fascist personality cult driven and totalitarian exercise in yesterday's socialist and utopian bullshit.

All that's left is the politics of power, and the buying of votes.

I completely agree with that.

Important for political marketing you mean

Yes, I used to want smaller government.

Well, it's more that they don't always have to mean the same thing. You can change what your position is on just about anything, but you're still being consistent!

Who wouldn't want smarter government... Too bad I don't see that one ever happening, or only with total crash...

Socialist now eh? You'll soon come running back once they've got you doing brain surgery on minimum wage. With a quality assurance inspector inspecting your work. And a quality assurance inspector inspecting the quality assurance inspection.

If they can get get you asking the wrong question they don't care about the answer.

Wrong question.
Who is better, Democrats or Republicans, Obama or Romney?  (Change for whichever country you are in).

Right question.
Why do we need government?

Bitcoin did not change my political position.



what is a political position?

some people here seem to welcome anarchist ideals.. but i can't go with that. in an anarchy, it's a fight for survival because there will be people are hungry to climb the ladder from the power vaccum. there would either be war or slavery everywhere. and yes, i know that we are under economic slavery right now, but that's not what i mean. in my mind, it would lead to lots of death and war. at the same time, i know capitalism is fucked up.. so i don't even pretend to know the answer.

No. It hasn't.

Issues and being newly informed should change your political viewpoint. Not attempts to address issues.

Yes; when you're dealing with a society of barbarians, you can only expect this; anarchism just happens to highlight this best, whereas totalitarianism hides it best; this does not remove the barbarians either way, the barbarians just form the best society for them, which typically involves you beneath their foot, either literally or economically or spiritually et al.  Anarchism can only function with a society of rational thinkers, which I believe is what we should be working towards, not away.  My analysis is that all forms of government are temporary until we achieve secular rationalism, whereupon such an event the state naturally becomes unnecessary, much the same way a person no longer relies on their parents to make decisions for them upon realizing they can make such decisions on their own.

Check out this book (http://www.freedomainradio.com/free/books/FDR_4_PDF_Everyday_Anarchy.pdf) for an easy explanation on anarchism; the situation you've described is not the political philosophy of anarchism, just a passing tide until another state can be installed, i.e. Somalia.  The anarchist society does not mean no rules, it simply means no rulers, and it is the only method of governance that you can ever hope the law to be reliably and uniformly upheld.


Knowing Elwar, I don't think he's referring to a larger government, either.

governments...

how cute

It's a position which allows you to engage in political debate while having sex.

Of course Bitcoins are the way to go for Anarchists. I'm one  ;D and Atheist too.
People who got in it during early days, would not be dependent any more on 9 to 5 jobs.

I think I've become more 'radical' and 'extreme' in my beliefs, I've always been pretty against government but now I know we can defeat the infrastructure entirely I think I've turned almost purely Anarchist. I do still believe though if we must have government it should be small and not overreaching since we've all seen what happens when it gets a lot bigger.

Nah, it's the other way around: I'm here because of my political position.

If politics were not bonkers, I reckon Bitcoin would be useless. It's only backlash against the insanity that has been compromising banking around the world.

It's not like humanity can't solve the issue of efficiently transmitting money. On the contrary, we need multiple hugely expensive police systems to prevent that. It keeps everyone occupied with anything but the actual criminals, while governments can set up absurd laws that favor their buddies on the markets -- with a glorious enforcement system "against terrorism" already in place.

I'm not under the illusion that Bitcoin is efficient. But what's happening in current banking might be so much less efficient that Bitcoin has a chance.

Anarchism is for children and naive people... I don't believe in anarchism but I believe in communities. I believe in people working together towards a common goal.
The Amish society is a good example.

That's right, anarchism and chaos are actually the same word, they're totally interchangeable. That's why so many people use them interchangeably, authority figures especially. Because when you say something out loud, it automatically becomes true.

So far it hasn't changed my position too much.  When a government tries to shut down Bitcoin, then it will.

If direct person to person currency destroys the State's ability to require itself to be an intermediary in every transaction (via it's currency) which said currency it then creates as it wishes, the result of direct currency would lessen the power, influence and apparent wealth of the State.  Since it's wealth is only that taken from the people, the effect of bitcoin should be that people get correspondingly richer.

I think bitcoin  if adopted in many nations as a second currency would have very interesting consequences.  For example:  

A decides to go to war against B.  A starts to print money and to ramp up it's military.  People in A move money into bitcoin.  A finds it's ability to go to war against B seriously impacted.

C is in a downward spiral with inflation at 50% per year.    Commerce and business and contracts are severely impacted because nobody knows how the units of currency will perform when the deal made today is executed tomorrow.  Making a contract becomes a form of betting.  As volatile as bitcoin is, it is superior to the currency of country C.  Better money drives out bad money.

I believe these are examples of people achieving a solution through peer to peer networking - with the ecurrency - which previously would have been thought to be solvable only by political changes at the national level.  Hence, bitcoin exposes the weak underside of the political process.  It can't help but destroy one's opinion as to the need for political action or change.

I was a supporter of a U.S dominated global political order, because history has invariably shown that the fall of one hegemony inevitably gives rise to a new, often much more dangerous one, especially considering the status quo: despite all that U.S has done, it's still much more benevolent and fair than Russia or China.

However it was entirely out of my expectation that something like Bitcoin can be done, because I am not Satoshi Nakamoto, and I am not the only one who had my "impossible" turned into "possible".

For me the defining moment was when I believed that security and law were services that could be provided by the free market and should not be monopolized by force.  I realized at that point I had completely fallen over the edge.

The technical plausibility of micropayments, coupled with wide usage of smart phones, has undermined the fundamental need for government in various areas.  Might take a while for people to realize that and implement systems, of course.

I never needed coercion.

I've been an anarcho-capitalist before Bitcoin, so my political ideology hasn't changed.

What has changed quite substantially is my belief in the practicality of this ideology and my approach towards its realization.

Anarchism, in its various forms, has existed as an idea for quite a while. Many words have been said about anarchism, and a few great intellectuals have contributed their thoughts.
But throughout history there has been very little meaningful, successful, anarchist politics. The political discourse has been rare, and (I apologize in advance to all the people I'm about to offend now) mostly quite shallow. Much of the intellectual core of political theory has disregarded anarchism (just gloss over the literature and compare how much has been written about anarchism, and particularly anarcho-capitalism, to how much has been written about Marxism, for example). Whenever it is regraded, it is treated as a distant utopian vision with little connection to the real world. Unfortunately, many of us anarchists have regarded it the same way.

Examples of successful anarchist political systems in the real world are practically nonexistent. Some have mentioned small sub-cultures existing on the fringes of society in mainstream nation-states. Some have written interesting analyses of places like Somalia. My own favorite example is the Paris Commune of 1871, which many have regarded as an example of early socialism or proto-Marxism, but to me has always looked more like a botched attempt at anarcho-capitalism. Either way, none of these examples can be regarded as pragmatically successful in the long run.

Furthermore, successful political tools which may enable the decentralization of power have also been lacking. Anarchism will remain an esoteric concept unless real-world mechanisms can be devised to begin the process of deconstruction of the state, or at least demonstrate that such a process is possible in principle.
For millennia we've all been habituated to life under centralized power structures, and most people are incapable of even imagining alternative structures. Most people still view anarchism the same way Hobbes did - as a chaotic dystopia in which people kill each other for scraps of food (we've seen examples on this very thread). In such an environment, introduction of anarchist concepts to the cognitive zeitgeist is possible only through the presentation of a working model, in which a large-scale, well-structured, organised political power system actually works in a completely decentralized fashion.

By robbing governments of their power over the monetary base, and presenting a fully functional (and highly scalable) decentralized mechanism for the management of money in general, Bitcoin will do much more than revolutionize the financial world.  It will finally allow people to imagine a world in which all forms of political power are decentralized, and yet complex political structures do exist, and are in fact more stable than before.

Hence, I view Bitcoin as the first truly successful anarchist venture.
The very fact that Bitcoin works so well is proof that systems like Bitcoin can work, which is a success in its own right.

Bitcoin has transformed me from someone who thinks anarcho-capitalism should happen, to someone who thinks anarcho-capitalism can happen. Now we just have to make it happen  :)

It's certainly made me skeptical of Anti-Money-Laundering laws.  It makes me feel better about the "Citizens United" decision.

No I don't think it's changed for me, but in general I'm happy to see the change it seems to be making for others.

Bitcoin made me more convinced of the inevitability of anarchy. Thank you Bitcoin!  :-*

Yes, anarchists believe in communities and working together towards a common goal; what do you not like about it?

Me too! Although for me "months" were "years" and although myrkul helped, by that point he was mostly reaffirming my beliefs and helping explain some more finite details for me. Back in 2007 I was proud to pay taxes to support our fine upstanding government, with it's social programs, mininum wages, roads and regulations, and a well managed USD policy. Although I was also really upset at the things Bush was doing with wars and especially Hoomeland Security act, and it may have been a combination of Bush and Bitcoin that finally changed my political view.

this really warms my heart :)

I think I had it lucky here; although as a kid I would say things like, "Only criminals want privacy because they're the only ones who have something to hide" (pretty sure I was just repeating what my mom was telling me), I never had a real interest in politics until I was around 19 years old, when I first started college and began taking courses in government and sociology.  I was only a democrat for a short while, so there wasn't a terribly large amount of de-education I had to do before picking up on libertarianism and anarchism, though it did take a bit of arguing to realize that gun bans really wouldn't help anyone.

Yeah, it has been a rather drastic change. Though, on the other hand, I was always a loner, outsider, and anti-ahtoritarian. Even back then I believed lawss should be treated more like guidelines, especially when actions aren't hurting anyone (mostly applied to traffic laws though  ;D). Point is, though, arguing on the internet DOES change people's mined. Not everyone's but at least anyone's who is willing to consider opposing views and learn from them.

It didn't change my political position.

Same.

No.  I've been full on anarchist for a couple of years now, after being a small government minarchist for about 3 years before that.  Before that, I was mostly politically agnostic after a brief period in my early adult life when I was leftist (mostly a result of leftist parents), though I soon realised that voting was pointless and that I didn't like some of the leftist policies any more than I like some of the right's policies and I didn't like being put in a box with all the other political zombies.  It was very much an evolutionary process for me.  I've been asking questions all along and only when I arrived at anarchy did I feel like I had real consistency.

I didn't really glom onto bitcoin and it's implications until late last year.  Just enough to get in before the big rise in price.  :)

Bitcoin is making political positions irrelevant by dismantling and/or circumventing the power structure that allows for politics (central planning and control).

Isn't AnarchoCapitalism a political position? It's even different from AnarchoCommunism.

Depends on our definition of politics:


The word originates from Aristotle's work:


However, anarchism is defined both as a political philosophy and as anti-statism, so it can be viewed as outside of the purview, at least in the traditional sense, of politics, whilst pertaining to politics.  Anarchism is about governing the self, as opposed to governing others, which makes it an unlikely candidate for our definition, unless we can influence other people indirectly, which I do believe is entirely possible.

I suppose this can be more easily summed up with the question, "Is atheism a religion?  Does atheism pertain to religion?"  Atheism, I think, is a position on religion, but not a position within religion.

in an anarchy, there'd be communities of people working together for the common good. but then there'd be nothing to prevent communities of people working together for personal gain and power. i know someone will say "but what's the difference between that and the society we live in." imo, it's similar but if we are living in an anarchy, there will be nonstop wars and power struggles all over the world.

You're right; anarchism never lasts in societies which don't believe in peace and solving problems with diplomacy and reason, they always revert to the state system as it is far more efficient for those who win these power struggles to combat entire nations.  The only way anarchism can work, which is why you see so many people here agreeing that anarchism is a good thing, is when you have a society of peaceful, rational people who believe freedom can only exist as a right when one accepts it, and grants this right to others; without this consistent agreement to shut-out the violent sociopaths, they always succeed in ruling over others, as they have no qualms using violence to get their way.  What we're looking at here, in the world right now, is the end-result of a power struggle that's evolving into global government, of people who do not believe in secular anarchy, only anarchy for themselves, which is slowly evolving into totalitarianism.  The nonstop wars and power struggles is literally the end result of limiting freedom to the few, since those with the power to govern are given a lot of power over those who aren't; any time a person has a lot of power over others, they have a powerful incentive to abuse it for personal gain; it just happens over and over again in history.

To simplify things, we can refer to anarchism, the political philosophy, as a society full of dictators of the self; we can refer to anarchism's opposite, totalitarianism, as a society with one dictator of everyone; everything else is in-between these two concepts, with varying levels of dictators and those dictated; the closer you get to totalitarianism, there is a decrease of dictators and an increase of those dictated; the closer you get to anarchy, there is an increase of dictators and a decrease of those dictated.  The goal, depending on who you are, is either to equip every person with the tools they need to govern, or to relieve every person of the tools they need to govern; you will generally move closer or away from these concepts depending on your political beliefs.  Moving toward anarchism is referred to as libertarianism, whereas moving toward totalitarianism is referred to as authoritarianism.

Anyhow, anarchism is literally just a non-hierarchical society; I realize it is a popular belief that anarchism is a synonym of chaos, as it is also a popular belief that without the state, people go full-retard out of the blue, but I assure you that anarchism is not about there being no rules, it is only a matter of ensuring nobody has the opportunity to rule over other people, thereby ensuring there is nobody above the law; if anything, it's about there being stronger rules, since nobody can just decide to go to war with another nation and waste billions and billions of dollars they don't even own.  It's not about there being no government, it's about spreading government out, or in other words decentralizing it, as opposed to our current centralized system of the state.  Wars would be quite rare due to being so expensive; you can't wage endless war without an empire, as you cannot build an empire without watering down the currency, as you can't force a currency if you have no more power than anyone else, and so you're much more likely to see peace than not.

i really do think the anarchists around here are actually people who want to live in utopian societies, but they use "anarchy" instead because that sounds more achievable.

in terms of decentralizing government, i think that is a utopian idealogy. maybe i'm a little bit cynical, but there's just no fucking way it's happening. there are 7 billion people in the world, of which many are smart and "hungry" for wealth and power. there is no way we are going to get them to play fair. and the thing is, the way to climb to the top, is to manipulate the blind and ignorant... which is what present day republicans are doing with their white conservative base, and what democrats are doing with their "i'm poor, give me free stuff" base.

I disagree; consider the goal of anarchism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism):


It's a clearly defined method of governance based around as much freedom as can be possible; as said, it can only work with secular rationalism, but it's a realistic goal.  Utopian implies a society which is unobtainable, which is also perfect; this cannot be, since people are not perfect and so we can never expect for there to be a utopia; in my opinion, utopia is synonymous with dystopia, and the only way to achieve either is through very extreme methods, none of which I want to try, i.e. Marxism.  I really do encourage you to read about it and make an informed conclusion on it.  There will still be crime and war with anarchism, just a lot less; I don't believe this to be utopian, but it's certainly an improvement, I think.

how is that goal NOT idealism? what most of us want is a free society that is not dominated by the powerful and rich.. but realistically, i don't think i can remember a point in history when this has been true. i would like the ideals of anarchism, but it's just not going to happen, especially with 7 billion people on the planet.

It would be idealism, if not for the (albeit very few) examples of anarchism occurring in reality; the best defense I have for the concept is this occurrence of Spanish anarchism. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0XhRnJz8fU)

Don't forget, wars are extremely expensive, completely unprofitable, and require those waging war to be able to steal money to support said war. On the other hand, resistance (such as guerila warfare) is typically voluntary, is cheap, and is driven more by ideology and wish to preserve one's way of life, which has a higher incentive than war does. That's why USA is spending billions in Afghanistan, and getting nowhere.
If we had some sort of a financial system that allowed people to hold their wealth in private and in secret, maybe even having it password protected so that those in power who wage war can't seize it either as a tax or as a spoil of war, then wars likely won't happen often, if at all. Sure, there will be squables over land or territory, but even those are typically way more expensive than diplomacy and business negotiations.

It won't be "utopian" in the least. There will still be social and economic conflicts, still be poor and hungry people, still be issues with crime, and still many of the same problems we have today. The biggest difference is that everyone will have to be responsible for themselves, and everyone will have a much wider choice of things to be responsible with, since services typically provided by government will likely be different when provided privately, and you'll have more options to choose from. There will also be way less waste of resources, since organizations that are not efficient will be forced to shut down, instead of continued to be supported with tax dollars "for the greater good," and change and new developments will be much more rapid due to fewer restrictions.

As for those people in power, combine the anonymity of bitcoin with assassination markets, where the more someone hurts people, the higher the bounty on their head grows (funded by completely anonymous donors), and you'll see people like that learn to behave very quickly.

Finally, it doesn't have to be a global thing that applies to all 7 billion people. We can still have countries "ruled" by anarchy alongside countries like North Korea. The difference will be that North Korea type countries will be rapidly falling appart, while the anarchy countries will be the richest and best defended (privately, and efficiently) in the world.

Best reason ever for buying a Bitcoin.

Here's a thought concerning the concepts of "utopia" and "idealism":

Anarchy often gets dismissed as being an "idealistic utopia", usually followed by the espousal of the speakers opinion on human nature (usually crooked) and how it has no chance of working out, "because humans are xy".

Yet many people criticizing anarchy in this way hold the firm belief, that it is possible to create a central government, which will be benevolent in its actions, populated by people of good-will, working towards the greatest good for the greatest number, while resisting the temptation to abuse their positions of power and/or steal from the big pile of resources the government has accumulated...EVEN THOUGH all this has been tried countless times in many forms all around the world and it has failed over and over again.

Now if that's not belief in an idealistic utopia, I don't know what is.

obviously i'm not one of those people who think centralized government works. we are doomed either way, and no anarchy is going to save us.

You beat me to it.  :)  People who believe in governments seem to believe that they are the way to a utopian system.   And they continue to beg and plead with the government and keep hoping that "we just need someone good to get in".

Many people are scared by the name anarchy I think.  They don't realise that much of their lives are already anarchic. 

Decentralized governance sounds safer :P

I prefer the name Voluntaryism.
This also more positively defines the goal. Namely that all interactions should be voluntary.

The name "anarchism" only defines what it should be not (no ruling hierarchy).

What alot of people don't understand is: Chaos ≠ Anarchy. Real Anarchy would be infinitely better than this shit storm of a mess.

I like that one; let's roll with voluntaryism ;D

So... VoluntoCapitalism? Or VolunterioCapitalism?  ;D

Maybe we should get a professional marketing company onto it  :)

the thing is, if you want a "real" anarchist society, you'd need a central government or force to ensure that nobody gains too much power and influence on society.. which kind of defeats the purpose, doesn't it?

Well , in the last 23 years we changed the ruling party with every election and just got in deeper....
There are countries in this world were you can't change your political position , because it's only one.

For instance , the ruling alliance here is made out of:
 1) social democrats
 2) liberals
 3) conservators
 4) union for progress

So , skipping the fact that i don't get how you can rule with both 3 and 4 views , quite the mess isn't it?

So you're saying, the only way to have a society without coercion...is to be coercive?  You're going in circles here; you're recreating what we already have.  Any reason in particular why people can't simply reject coercion?

From Skeptical Keynesian
To Anti Keynesian
Not sure where that goes in politics anti-neoliberalism to transitional socialism ?

Oh yes, that's a big deal. Our cultural operating system has connected Anarchy to Chaos by simple association, by saying it over and over again. Kind of like "freedom and democracy" is a widely used phrase. So let me point out, that if it is "Anarchy AND Chaos" and "Freedom AND Democracy" this logically means that anarchy is NOT chaos and freedom is NOT democracy. Otherwise the words in the sentences would be redundant :)

The whole discussion surrounding anarchy is always so weird. People saying we can't live without rules and then claiming in Anarchy there would be chaos. Even though they themselves are living proof that people are absolutely obsessed with creating rules. Of course there would be rules in Anarchy. There would just be a lack of an universal set of rules, applicable to everybody (except those with the means to bribe the system) and enforceable by a central authority with the legal monopoly on the initiation of force. That's all. Oh an maybe, just maybe, having 100s of different kinds of something is preferable to having only one of it. You know, like, central point of failure kind of thingy. And a little something called "diversity" - I just had this incredible thought, that maybe not everyone is exactly alike.  ;D

We fear most what we misunderstand :P

Right, all you'd need to do is defend your rights.  You could do that collectively+voluntarily, or individually - each person could use his efforts and resources as he sees fit.

No need for a government - just institutions that defend rights without using coercion.  If one of those institution or some other institution starts infringing rights, you handle it in the same way: start a new one.  (Or individually if you believe that will work out better.)

I like that one as well, and it has a nice logo. :)

I honestly use a lot of terms to describe myself.  Forgive me but in some contexts I still call myself conservative - but I do so pointing out how the "conservative" politicians violate all that I ever believed was conservative, and point out how a consistent application of the values I believe in (usually the values of the person I'm addressing, if I am using this term) leads to libertarianism/anarchism.  Then again in other contexts I'll say I'm not a conservative (usually when the person I'm addressing uses the term "conservative" to mean a particular set of coercive views that I don't hold - examples being imperialism, the war on drugs, coercion to enforce religious values, etc.)

I call myself an anarchist, an anarcho-capitalist, a voluntaryist, an anti-statist, a libertarian, a freedom-lover a conservative, a paleoconservative, and probably others I can't think of at the moment.  Whatever term I'm using at the moment, it's an attempt to explain my belief that we are all better off if we reject coercion, reject the state (as an institution of coercion), and cooperate only on a voluntary basis - and that doing so is the only right and moral way to behave and build a society.

To me anarchy means the exact opposite of chaos - it means spontaneous order, productivity, and the ability to build a satisfying life.

I'm an anarchist because I believe in spontaneous emergence of order.  Trying to destroy that spontaneous order is what causes chaos.

Not really.  You have to look at protection as just another service.  At the moment it is monopolised in any given area (country) by one service provider (government) who forces you to pay.

Imagine if you had competing protection service providers and you could voluntarily choose which one protects you.  I'm pretty sure in a competition setting these guys wouldn't be charging the same extortionate fees that the government does (taxes).  After all, you don't have to pay any of them.

The question at that point you are probably curious about is what would happen when customers of different agencies come into conflict.  Well, that's where arbitration agencies come into play.

Everything provided by the government can be provided by the market.  After all, it's just humans doing it in both cases.

I guess that's because you're actually paying attention, instead of having your concepts and frames of reference being spoon-fed to you by your culture  ;D

Order as an emergent property of any system can be readily observed anywhere in nature and the cosmos. It has even been proved mathematically (by Ilya Prigogine) that disorderly systems tend to spontaneously reorganize themselves at higher levels of coherence.

Only the brainwashed believe that order is something that has to be imposed by human interaction.

It turns out growing up as a social outcast is a bit of an advantage for some things in life. :)

Exactly.   :D

no, why would it?

89 responses.  God damn I feel popular

Because acting like a herd animal means you're always given the opportunity to make truly logical and moral choices. If you think and act independently, you just end up going along with group consensus all the time.

Everything always comes down to incentives. You don't need a central government to ensure that nobody gains too much power, you just need to structure your incentives to make gaining power less valuable. For instance, there are ways to make attempts at gaining more power at others' expense actually be way more constly than gaining power through voluntary trade. With such a method, it would be in everyone's best interest to not gain political power, and stay out of the political spotlight.

I love the new Voluntaryist text under your avatar, Mike.

Yes, but shooting politicians usually has serious consequences and is still arguably immoral. ;)

(Oh, you probably meant some other ways....)

Mike, did you mean to say "not my mortal men" or "not by moral men" in your sig? Everyone is mortal



Nah, that's pretty much it. Without government there to take your taxes, and then use your tax money to pay for police to protect bad businessmen and politicians, those types will have to pay for their own protection of their own person and property, which is directly proportional to how much they piss other people off. Protection like that is way more expensive and way less profitable than playing by the rules, since even something as simple as a cheap $50 bomb near your factory pipeline, or a $5 bar of baking yeast in your house's septic tank, can make things way more costly and unpleasant.

I think he's saying that if anarchism is not possible and government is necessary, then the government must be done by divine beings who transcend human nature.  If government is necessary because of man's evil nature, then man is incapable of governing.  So if we accept the lie that our government is good and necessary, we are necessarily attributing divinity and transcendence of mortality and human nature to our rulers.

But maybe I'm reading too much into it. :)

I think that's exactly what he's saying.

Do raw eggs fit in long range potato guns?

Just wondering...

I was a left boy but I become more and more a pirate arr

i originally got into bitcoin when i was an agorist. it sort of went hand in hand with it. i have always considered myself a libertarian, although i now consider myself an anarchist and thus much further left now than when an agorist. so.... i suppose bitcoin has not changed my positions.....

How does it make you feel when confronted with all these libertarians and agorists these days? Idiots, eh! You must feel so retarded looking back to when you were an ignorant agorist, my god

Still hasn't decided what my political position is, but as far as i can say now, nothing in Denmark fits my needs, so im just gonna vote blank.

I really wish people would stop thinking about politics in terms of the "left-right paradigm". It's so counterproductive.

Using the left-right axis is actually the most meaningful way of looking at political opinions. So-called "descriptive" positions, like liberal, capitalist, anarchist or communist just confuse things, they only provide a blank canvas onto which any useful politics can be projected by a conniving political manipulator.

From my point of view as an anarchist, left and right (in America at least) seem to be particular sets or "baskets" of opinions.  Looking at it from the principles I follow, some of the right positions and some of the left positions seem internally inconsistent.  For example, the American right claims the principle of "small government," but then supports the largest government program of all (the warfare state.)

Walter, you're a good guy, but I'm being massively, massively sarcastic in that post (and all other posts in this thread). It should be pretty obvious that the exact opposite of what I said up there is the logical truth, but no-one seems to be catching on. Although you've got a much better idea than most, in fairness.



The left and the right isn't just a "failed paradigm", or "no longer adequate for the job", it's an outright distortion of the truth, it always was. And it's only any good at making people who really want Liberalism end up with Socialism, and people who want Libertarianism end up getting Crony-Capital Corporatism. I don't know why I'm saying this, it's maybe something to do with it being the actual truth.

Here it is again folks. The headshot. Take everything Left of center. Then everything on the Right. Flip them around. It. makes. no. fucking. difference. Hence, fake. Hence, clever psychological propagandism mechanism. All time, all round champion. Your news-media, history books, economics guides, school teachers, friendly neighbours, they all talk about and refer to this complete bullshit fictional scale as if it's something real. Blame the first three on that list, the rest were all idiots who mindlessly repeat things without ever thinking them through.

Mind control is not secret government radio waves targeted at you from black ops weather balloons. It's a subtly crafted, well thought out lie, widely told and widely believed. And it starts being told from the mouths of people who we should be able to trust the most.

D'oh!  My sarcasm meter must have been completely off!  Thank you for clarifying.

I love your avatar and username, btw.  Always gets me singing "It's Not Unusual..."

I've been trolling all the, shall we say less thoughtful, responses to this thread all along, starting with the OP. Your post does not come under that category though, I just got fed up with the charade and took the opportunity you gifted me.

The topic of the moment is
HAS THE US SENATE Discussion changed your political position  8)

Oh, yes; I am now a staunch fascist and just about ready to conquer any nation which gets in our way :P

they're all sycophants.. so i'm assuming the congress members present at the meeting today have or will buy BTC.. or possibly they're being bought out by someone with lots of BTC.

so no, my opinion still remains.

BTC and this forum pretty much showed me Libertatrians are a bunch of juvenile dreamers and goofed out trippers unable to respond  or react to criticism.

I'm sure the abolitionists in the 19th century were told the same kinds of things. 

I first got involved with Bitcoin as a minarchist. Since then I've become a full-on libertarian - not through Bitcoin per-se, but through reading this forum and plenty of Rothbard.

It's clear to me now that libertarianism is the only morally-consistent position.

What's the difference between a minarchist and an anarchist?

About 6 months.  ;D

That warms my heart, friend.  I hope many, many more come to the same conclusions through the things that are going on through this currency and the community that surrounds it.

If I may make a non-sarcastic troll-tastic point:


I like libertarianism and anarchism. But it's too easy to associate them with selfishness "Oh, that's what all the rich Bitcoiners would say, 'Everyone should be able to choose everything for themselves'. How convenient that you guys just so happen to be the richest swines in this techno-hell of a world we have found ourselves in!!!"

This is why I'm relentlessly attacking the political labels that we're all chucking around our discussions here; not because I'm trying to make some sort of high-brow joke that everyone else is the butt of, but to make you see that smart people will use these labels against you.

They will say "you are libertarian, that means you tolerate, but secretly hate the guts of gays/the poor/foreigners/trans-sexuals/welfare lifestylers/popular culture, and this is all because libertarians are right-wing"

So you must stick hard to the principles of these political positions. If someone tries to steer you into a position that corrupts or misrepresents your principles, you must argue effectively and vociferously against it. And you can only do that if you know your principles inside out, I'm pleased that there are good signs that people here do.


So, just remember, it's not about being a libertarian. Libertarian is a single word, and it can be made to mean something different to what you actually believe in, if someone is dedicated to making it so. And other, less informed, people will believe the new definition, not the intended one.

Individual words and their meanings can be subverted by the people with the means to shout the loudest, it has been done many times in the past and it can happen again. It is much more difficult to alter the meaning of principles. Because principles are logical statements, not just some label that can have any association tacked onto it with a pin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLCEUpIg8rE&noredirect=1

Absolutely.  I have seen it many times.  You make some very good points.

Haha, right after posting that, I viewed this great example of how that word can be misused, and is in fact misused in the clip I posted:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYv9CHDc34w

A good article that really demonstrates some of the stuff I say about political labels and left/right fallacy (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-11-21/guest-post-new-world-order-%E2%80%93-part-1-betrayal-nation)

(apologies if the title sounds a little bit "Actor Tom Truong", but it's a very very good article)

Bitcoin as such hasn't changed my position, but investing in general has affect my political outlook.

I now recognise the tyranny of central banking and fiat money. Tax is theft yada yada yada. I have been lead to bitcoin as a result of these. I have also emigrated from a socialist country to a tax haven so it has affected me in that way too.