Bitcoin Forum

This thread is the result of a thought process that originated from reading this:


Before reading that I didn't know anything about how he thinks, but since then, and knowing more and more how the forum works, I keep thinking how different the forum would be if instead of an ancap in charge we had a socialist. The hypothetical scenario of a communist, I don't even consider it, because they have the virtue of ruining everything they touch, so I think the forum would have run out of traffic and probably disappeared long ago in that case.

I will outline the three main things that I believe would be different if a socialist were in charge:

1) Political censorship.

That's for sure. It's along the lines of what we can see elsewhere on the internet. The freedom of expression here would not be the same. The degree of censorship would depend on how sensible the (socialist) person in charge was. But at the very least we would have seen censorship on the COVID issue.

2) The trust system would not be decentralized.

In the OP of DefaultTrust changes (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5095156.0), Theymos mentions David Friedman (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_D._Friedman), who is an ancap, and son of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.
Decentralizing the system is along the lines of believing that if you let people interact with each other, the system will self-regulate. It's kind of like what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand." You don't need a politician from above imposing laws, rules and regulations, people interacting with each other does much better.

3) The merit system (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2818350.0) would not have been created.

And I think another worse solution would have been implemented, although we can never know for sure. The system is not perfect, but it is very good. It rewards those who make an effort, instead of trying to equalize, redistribute and talk about "unfair advantages". It is a typically capitalist system of competition, effort and reward for effort and a job well done.

This is what I have been thinking lately and I would like to read what you think.

I don't know where you draw those conclusions from, but you seem to have little knowledge of real socialism and what it represents. In fact, the decentralized trust system and the merit system fit very well into socialist society. As far as "political censorship" is concerned, it has more to do with communism than socialism.

Looks like you are obsessed posting negative content about Socialism and painting it in a bad way.

Are you painting Socialism in a bad way because you don't know much about it or are you painting Socialism in a bad way because it is your only intention to be negative?

There is no competition and merits are not scarce. It's basically a participation trophy, just show up and post something coherent and you'll get a merit - no elaborate talent show required. I don't know whether that's "socialist" or "capitalist" or "ancap" or whatever juxtaposition you're trying to do here, it doesn't seem to be political at all.

Who enforces private property rights in a stateless an-cap society?  What happens if workers at my factory keep what they produce or tenants living in the home I own don't pay rent? 

Whoever has the biggest guns. But whatever happened to Proudhon's 'property is theft'?

But making the huge assumption that such a society could actually persist in some form of stability without degenerating into a bloodbath, everything would be controlled by monopolies and cartels.

I've only just started this one...

Legal Systems Very Different from Ours
By: David Friedman, Peter Leeson, David Skarbek
Narrated by: David Friedman




Ha Poker Player you just gave me like a triple "geek out" I adore Milton Friedman and the books he and his wife wrote, their son is quirky and has really interesting books and ideas as well ---quite different from his dad.

P.S. finally someone who doesn't mangle the invisible hand concept   -- thank you :-)

We're pretty lucky to have Theymos "in charge"

It didn't need any help though, surely? It mangled itself. It's an outdated and discredited concept, more wishful thinking than anything else.


I always come out as that, too. I'd imagine we're quite over-represented on the Politics and Society board of a bitcoin forum.


To some people (although not myself), communism as a theoretical concept is appealing. Its crucial failure in practice is that it is so easy to corrupt. But isn't this true of any extremist ideology? An ancap society in practice would surely go the same way (albeit via a different route).
What do you imagine a forum run by a socialist might look like? Red background, hammer and sickle everywhere? Forum rules only altered in accordance with the current five-year plan? Trolls sent to Siberia for "re-education"?

Compared to the affirmative action going on here for trolls, spammers, and other assorted idiots, sending them off to Siberia twitbook and snapgram wouldn't be that bad, would it.

Just one of those things where the allegedly "ancap" forum is about as communist (equality at the expense of efficiency) as it gets.

TBH if their route became Facebook/Twitter -> bitcointalk, although they'd still be posting stupid links, it would probably be an improvement on the current route of Bitchute/NaturalNews -> bitcointalk.

But relocation to Siberia will of course remain the dream.

I think scholars have mangled it as a concept when teaching it in class
 and that continually gets carried over into political/economic discussions, inserted into movies T.V. shows, books ect.

There are many observations made in the book and one of them is that a supply chain and/or market can move itself quite efficiently without outside regulations and controls.
Smith also observes areas where government interference is in play.
There is more observation than opining in the Wealth of Nations.

This is one those times when I feel lucky not to have been educated. Scholars who want to teach Wealth of Nations should at least read his Theory of Moral Sentiments and at least brush upon the changes that were happening on a global scale at the time (Age of Enlightenment).

Actually scholars who want to teach economic concepts (Hayek vs Keynes) should include social circumstance into the lessons as background.

And maybe bitcoin/Bitcoin is a perfect present day observation of a system at work---in its free and regulated state.


                                                               "I'd imagine we're quite over-represented on the Politics and Society"

Introverts unite---lol just kidding :-)       I've wondered that about INTJ's and our interests, most of my friends are extroverts.




So... is there going to be a "Siberia Board" or what ?

^^^ If you look at Bitcoin and the altcoins lately, what in the world is moving them? Outside of a few strays or new altcoins, they all move together. Something is controlling them.

8)

The book was written when the US was still a colony of England. It was written before we knew how to produce electricity. I don't think it can say a huge amount about the advanced market economies of the modern world.

I tend to view capitalism as a process rather than an end state. I don't see how it can have an equilibrium position. I am not educated in this either, so forgive my ignorance, but if the contention is that a system based on the pursual of self-interest and profit at the expense of others (because capitalism is a competition, isn't it?) contains within itself some invisible mechanism that pulls society towards economic stability and equilibrium... then it just sounds like wishful thinking. I mean, the 2008 crisis couldn't have arisen unless the excesses of capitalism had increased instability to such a point that everything was ready to collapse. Perhaps the answer is that I misunderstand the concept, but it perplexes me that some people still believe that an invisible hand exists, and my only conclusion when I compare this belief to the utter absence of evidence for its existence, is that it is simply a psychological prop used to support an idea that is outdated and incorrect.


This is one of those threads that opens up many avenues of discussion, and I may be veering off-topic.

LOL---if you could see my reaction (like oh noooo you didn't just say that about TWoN   :o )

You would be surprised. I'd venture to guess that most modern day Economists have read it or had to be "schooled on it" in some class.
Milton Friedman got me interested in the book to begin with and then constant misrepresentations made me finish reading it.
It is really quite an extraordinary amount of data that he collected for those times.


"The Invisible Hand" *no ominous background music included

Here is an O.K. interpretation *stolen from the internet
"a metaphor for the unseen forces that move the free market economy"

I would say the unseen forces in any type of economy---> Us people, the personal choices we make that move markets.

                           

 "Capitalism as a process" Yes I agree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

"In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith speaks of an invisible hand, never of the invisible hand. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith uses the concept to sustain a "trickling down" theory, a concept also used in neoclassical development theory: The gluttony of the rich serves to feed the poor.

The rich ... consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand [emphasis added] to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for.[12]"




and now we're all reminded of how our friends feel when we talk about bitcoin  ;) ----which is why I used to just give it to them

I will concede the point, I didn't mean to say that :D. What I mean is, it's a starting position, and in terms of the modern world it's more a prediction than an analysis. It doesn't describe the modern world through observation, more through prediction... it's more of an idealised understanding, and the modern world I would say has not developed exactly as anticipated. What I mean is that there are nuances which of course could not have been anticipated. I'm certainly not denying it's important, but it's flawed.


I appreciate we are coming at this from different angles, but to me, trickle-down is another discredited theory, another imaginary prop used as a moral support to justify selfishness and rapacity.

Thank You :-) made me laugh
Here is the thing, if you talk to educated people about the book they will say I'm not getting it---> like "trickle down",
turned into "Trickle Down Economics" in my country decades ago and it ain't pretty and is pretty much what he was concerned about happening
when individuals were replaced with conglomerates and over governance.


Smith is being more spiritual, godley or humanistic than most economists or politiciations will be capable or willing to translate.
Serving our own self interest is an undeniable human trait, I don't think he was overly optimistic to think that we would look out for our fellow man during the pursuit of that on an individual level.

When corporations have the rights of people it becomes rapacious. When governments preserve the rights of corporations over its people it becomes coercion and oppressive.



*that last sentence is more me than Smith ;-)
He would have worded it in a more dignified manner.

Hi guys, thanks for the replies, but I’m not going to go into detail.

In fact, I've been thinking and I don't think you'll be seeing much more of me on this board, at least in the near future.

I think I have a lot more to lose than to win if I keep coming back here.

This does not mean that I will not talk about politics, for example, in the Economics board we also talk about politics mixed with economics, but discussions there are not usually so heated or confrontational.

I think I will do much better on this forum if I change the time I spent here for time on the technical boards.

I’ll see you around the forum.

On my part, you have my word:
no heat nor shade was thrown or felt, it was one of the "funnest" conversations regarding socialism, anarcho capitalism, Et al. that I've had this year :-)

Although...
If you are going to post about politics on the Economics board here on bitcointalk with a tag showing appreciation for capitalism; you may experience heat.
Politics and Economics are not the sweetest side of bitcointalk (mining used to be).

Again forgive my ignorance, as I'm not an expert on this topic... but if you are saying that the 'invisible hand' argument should be interpreted as meaning that capitalism does not self-regulate by itself, or through any human endeavour, but needs something external (i.e., God) to do this, then I suppose we're in agreement. I've said in many discussions in P&S that although my politics are considerably left-of-centre, I believe that the oxymoron of 'capitalist democracy' is the best system of government we can have... so long as the government works to rein in the excesses of capitalism, and the capitalism works to prevent forced absolute equality of outcome. We need two opposing forces to keep each other in check. I think this is self-evident, and extremist ideologies such as communism or, on the other side, anarcho-capitalism, are doomed to failure.

I am in favour of equality of opportunity, and the only way I see this arising is in a capitalist democracy where the government is left-leaning. A right-wing government, one which more or less is in alignment with laissez-faire capitalism, doesn't provide the required balance.



As a parting comment then, I'd ask you once again to consider my argument above, and also my contention that capitalism is a process rather than an end-state. A process has a direction of travel. It may not start out that way, but pure, unfettered capitalism works to reduce competition. This is its direction of travel. If governments did not restrain it, the outcome would be monopolies and cartels. The question of whether these are state-run or privately-run then becomes irrelevant.

Sort of except that godliness (or our human nature) within each of us would be the unseen force: an invisible hand   ----the observable market is the externality.
Maybe to explain what it is not: it is not an ominous controlling hand above us, it is us.


While ideologically I'd like to be a Libertarian in a free market economy...

I am wholeheartedly for democratic capitalism as the functioning structure and best hope for a prosperous humanity (for now)

It's disappointing to see the "tax the rich" rhetoric going on---how about:
Stop letting corporations make their own rules and get big money interests the hell out of politics---just those 2 tweaks could go a long way
to preserving democratic capitalism but instead we are attacking (as usual) people on the individual level.
The corporate structure is one of the keystones to prosperity but it isn't a stretch to see why some people are leaning into socialism, especially those too young to have observed it in action large scale and are now observing crony capitalism in action.
And if I was younger and could give up my desire for orderly systems I would totally be up for Anarchy ;-)

I don't know what the climate is in your country between left and right.
I consider myself a centrist and am registered independent (meaning neither party).
However, others would consider me [socially] leftist in that, I wish for all of my compatriots to feel equally represented, enfranchised--- and to feel that "liberty and justice for all" means something. ----I rarely speak to those on the far right of that because I don't have a lot of patience for that perspective (I could easily behave badly ).

 

It's the UK. We don't really have a viable left, since the "Labour" party have reinvented themselves once again. The Green party is probably our main left-wing party, but they only tend to gather a few percentage points of the vote. Our future prime minsters are generally drawn from a small subset (https://www.etoncollege.com/) of children. But I won't expand on all of this here, or it will turn into an essay.


Yes, but centuries of evidence show that the invisible hand either doesn't exist or, if it does, then its effect is almost nothing.


Yes, agreed.


If pure capitalism leads to excess and abuse, and there needs to be some mechanism to reduce this effect, as you seem to agree in your point above, then why should we not tax the rich? If a corporation exploits the system to the detriment of others by making its own rules, then why should the CEO and directors of that company be perceived as having acquired their wealth by fair and legitimate means? If there are people who exploit the system, then why would it be disappointing if we sought to prevent this exploitation? Is it okay that Jeff Bezos has $200 billion, but his employees have to sh*t in plastic bags in their vans because they'd lose their job if they took a toilet break (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/mar/25/amazon-delivery-workers-bathrooms-memo)?

Previously I have compared these two facts:

1. This $5 billion yacht exists.
https://www.atlasmarinesystems.com/most-expensive-yachts/

2. 1 in 3 people globally do not have access to safe drinking water.
https://www.who.int/news/item/18-06-2019-1-in-3-people-globally-do-not-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-unicef-who

Whilst, as I say, I am in favour of equality of opportunity, and against absolute equality of outcome, I do believe in progressive taxation. And income tax alone is insufficient when the elite draw most of their wealth from returns on existing capital. (Yes, I am a fan of Thomas Piketty, and read Capital in the Twenty-First Century when it was first published.)

I believe that existing inequality of outcome is obscene. I am not talking about someone who is talented and worked hard and made themselves say $10 million. Numbers become difficult to fully comprehend once we move past the scale for which the human brain evolved. I am fond of the visualisation below. Scroll through this and tell me that existing tax on the wealthy is sufficient (there is plenty of additional information if you scroll far enough).

https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/

We could have long conversations regarding the world water crises, I just cant type fast enough to do it here. On the small scale I've belonged to service clubs that help put in and teach communities to build/maintain their own wells. On the larger scale we have privatized some of earth resources and that's not going well for too many humans.

I think "taxing the rich" is another sound byte solution in a world where some in depth revisiting of policies could make deep meaningful changes without redistribution of wealth.

I think we need a major paradigm shift---I don't feel like it will be in my lifetime.

We can certainly agree on that.

Maybe not. But perhaps the climate crisis will precipitate* change. Or perhaps the inequalities and unfairness that are the natural outcome of capitalism will leave a sufficiently sizeable proportion of voters feeling disenfranchised that they'll vote for change. Coincidentally, I read this article (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/20/eat-the-rich-why-millennials-and-generation-z-have-turned-their-backs-on-capitalism) this morning.





* pun not intentional, but left in anyway :)

That's a good article beginning with an OG age of enlightenment thinker and throwing in contemporary (Canadian) Steven Pinker's Enlightenment Now which is itself an outline of how good we have it as a result of enlightenment type thinking but I'm biased,--- I liked the book a lot (liberal capitalist that I am :-).

Those sound like the concerns young Americans have  add health care and racial tensions that may still be awhile in healing. Housing has been an issue here as well, especially in California "tent cities" exist on many off-ramps. As for Las Vegas running out of water...it was built in the middle of the desert: that's more of an "Oh us silly humans" and resource allocation issue. We've had water wars in California as far back as I can remember, we grow more agriculture than rain or runoff can support and it has always been disheartening to see big Ag win over small farms---again we allow those with the best attorneys and most money to influence the rules.


We could be encouraged that our youth are factoring the quality of life of their fellow humans as something to value. The paradigm has been shifting away from glamorising excessive wealth and that in itself is an improvement but the climate crisis continues to precipitate* ( yeah lol ) resistance to science in some of my country and it is from a side that one would have been expected to preserve our environment.
Inequality is not the "natural" out come of capitalism, it is what we are currently allowing.

I'd argue that inequality is the inevitable outcome if we are considering pure capitalism. The phrase "what we are currently allowing" only has meaning when there is an opposing force present to allow or forbid certain actions.

So it is certainly not an inevitable outcome if we are considering capitalist democracy. The level of inequality in a capitalist democracy is dependent in large part on the government. Most current governments allow huge inequality.

I'd also add that whilst the people in charge (whether running a company or a government) acting mostly out of self-interest is a problem, we also need to consider that self-interest can be charted with a time axis, and short-termist thinking is a huge and pervasive issue. CEOs will act to increase the share price right now, even if it's at the expense of what happens in 5 years' time, when it could well be someone else running the company. And governments are just as bad, if not worse. The Covid lockdowns in my view were implemented far too late, which exacerbated the economic damage that governments were trying to avoid in the first place by keeping society running as normal. Similar with the "too little, too late" response to the climate crisis.

I always think about Tesla and Edison and what life might look like all over the world today if Telsa had been better at capitalizing on his ideas .

It is odd for us little people to wonder at a behemoth of a publicly traded company--- lamenting on the inequity of it all when the leaders of those corporations
are fiduciary to share holders and have the rights of persons but not the responsibility.
 "Citizens United"---one of the things I (futaliy but still try to) support in overturning
https://americanpromise.net/2019/04/5-reasons-we-need-an-amendment-to-say-corporations-arent-people/?gclid=Cj0KCQjwqKuKBhCxARIsACf4XuE3aMow_W0i_YhVh8KyhPYY6E3e6KGj8nN4yZSIZYJDzlzqHJdGl7MaAglsEALw_wcB

Easier read on Citizens United
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

So if a CEO or CFO has a fiduciary duty to maximize profits it would almost be irresponsible to pay people more than you 'have to'.
We have a federal minimum wage in America of $7.25 it's been there for over a decade and while I don't agree with having one:
since we do, it should be tethered to some livable wage based in reality. The truly galling thing about it, is that the same politicians who decided not to raise it, get to vote on their own pay, benefits and retirement plans.

Walmart is an easy example.
My (otherwise) sweet aunty who doesn't want "her taxes going to pay for her neighbors house" (and will post that everywhere), doesn't have anything to say about corporate welfare or just observing the obscene profit margins and share holder payouts while the average person working there is eligible for food stamps and government assistance--- which is another way to subsidize corporations while denigrating a hard working human.  <---one of the paradigms I'd love to see shifting (less Limbaugh rhetoric)
Maybe we can shame companies into treating its employees better? Laughing but also...serious.

If you or I launder money, we go to prison if HSBC does it, they get a fine not close to touching the profit they made doing it.
If you or I  conspires to murder we go to prison. If a corporation calculates a potential human loss of life in say...
polluting waterways (to reduce their cost in haz. waste disposal) , they may get a fine or pay settlements, if their attorneys aren't good enough to get them out of it.

Dan Price made a different choice and  I hope his company thrives as a good model.

"In 2015, Dan made headlines around the world when he announced to the entire Gravity team that he planned to raise the minimum wage for everyone to $70,000. He called the move a “moral imperative” to do the best you can for those you’re leading."


I'm not ready to scrap democratic capitalism but it needs more of us people to pay attention to the ways our individual liberties have been usurped in this top down fashion and for us to collectively reassert ourselves.
People do not have as much liberty as a corporation and I personally feel that's an affront to humanity----"the affront to humanity".

I agree with almost everything you've written there.


But to me this part seems a contradiction, and I don't understand how someone could be against a minimum wage but, if there is one, then in favour of it being raised.


Democratic capitalism is the best system we have, but it needs to work for the people rather than for the elite. In order for this to happen, the government must not be enablers of exploitation and crony capitalism, they must instead act as an opposing force (to a carefully calibrated extent, not overwhelmingly so). A right-wing government is largely pointless in this regard.

I would say that most people have constraints on their freedom because they are in effect wage slaves. If for example you have to work say 60 hours a week in a low-paid job just to be able to support your family, then you are not able to pursue education opportunities, or move to a different part of the country where there are better jobs, and it is not surprising that people feel there is no way out. This makes them antagonistic towards the state, increases feelings of disenfranchisement, and enables the rise of populist demagogues such as Trump who prey on people's fears and prejudices in order to further their own ends (it's scarcely believable that someone who actually lives in a tower of gold can harness the support of much of the nation's poor).

The way to empower ordinary people is surely to loosen their shackles. A minimum wage is a first step here, but (and I suspect you will be against this) a UBI seems the ideal solution. The concept is often misunderstood as 'free money', when in fact it's simply a more equitable distribution. I feel that in a society with a UBI, the worst jobs would have to be at least somewhat more appealing in terms of working conditions than they are now. And the concept of a UBI might even appeal to right-wingers, as the establishment of a universal single flat rate payment would enable the removal of state bureaucracy involved in managing the complexities of existing income support.

And you just summed up one of the ways I don't typically fit into either political party.
That could be an entire conversation of what I think the limits and responsibilities of governments should be and how we should start utilizing technology to shape policy.

 and it's so late here that it's almost time for me to get up :D

Bills and measures used to be something even I could read and comprehend, now they are usually these behemoths of policy convoluted by related and unrelated policies.

A vote to raise the fed. minimum wage failed to pass the senate  earlier this year
https://www.npr.org/2021/02/05/964020654/senate-says-no-to-15-minimum-wage-for-now-but-democrats-vow-to-push-on

The way welfare programs were initially implemented had more of an impact on breaking up family units than is usually discussed--- I'll use the B word (bureaucracy) on it.

I'd really like to see UBI replace those programs. And we are entering an age where it is technology possible to implement with advances in technology almost making it an imperative.

We can circle back to Milton Friedman for that---I know I have a YouTube link for that somewhere, I'd have to sift through my 50+ links of him----that friggin guy was brilliant ! He was also an excellent communicator.

most of my Friedman saved videos are from the "free to choose" channel so they would be too long for most people to enjoy
so here are short clips from channels I don't subscribe to
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7UW1umM0hM&ab_channel=football24777     less than 3mins

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNffhKX4KC8&t=11s&ab_channel=zebeccopy    about 17 mins