Bitcoin Forum

You must be delusional if you think governments are the cause of war and destruction. In fact, the greatest fallacy of right wing libertarian thinking is the tendency to blame governments for everything. War has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with governments and everything to do with scarcity and profit. Historically scarcity has been the main cause of war, even otherwise peaceful tribes had to go to war occasionally when their territory conflicted with another tribe. In other words, resources and their scarcity is the main cause of war.

In the modern world we have less scarcity but more greed. This has led to wars being started, funded and continued for profit. Someone always profits from war, the weapons industry, construction industry, banks etc. This creates a strong incentive for certain corporations to support war. It's obvious that wars officially happen between governments but it's the forces behind governments that support the war. So yes, governments are to blame, but not alone. The corporations supporting the war effort are just as much to blame. To summarize, it's not fruitful to blame the governments or the corporations alone, the whole system is flawed.

I admit there are other causes for war as well, such as religion and race. But I claim that most wars are actually about resource scarcity or profit, issues such as religion and race are mostly used as a tool to get the masses behind the war effort. There are of course exceptions to this, crusades where it's actually about religion, nothing else. The whole issue is very complex but one thing is for sure, putting the blame on the governments alone is just idiotic. And this applies to many other issues as well.

I think that's a record for me, I am now a delusional right wing libertarian idiot, all from one post - I think I'll put that as my sig.  Can someone be a right wing libertarian?  Isn't that like a socialist capitalist? What do I know anyway, I'm a delusional idiot who uses bitcoins and thinks war has a lot to do with governments.

In the USA, the largest group of Libertarians are led by Ron Paul who is a Republican Presidential Candidate. They may not be as right wing as Newt Gingrich, but his son Rand Paul is a complete wing nut on the far right.

There's a leading theory that vaccines are a major cause of libertarianism in the U.S., although I think this may be a bit of a stretch based on the fact that Ron and Rand Paul both are affected by Asperger's syndrome.

Thanks goodness for a state like Kentucky, backward enough that even a mildly retarded con man can still become a U.S. Senator there. Rand also distinguished by having himself certified as a laser eye surgeon by a state professional organization that he founded solely for this purpose. His inability to see any problem with this strategem is a striking example of the quirky thinking often seen in Asperger's.

Actually there is conclusive physical evidence of brain differences between self-described Liberals and Conservatives. There have been dozens of studies of such brain scans.

So Rand and Newt would be right wing Republicans.  But when I think of right wing I think of imperialist big military blow up the world neo-conservitave types, and when I think of libertarian it's non-intervention leave and let be - much more suitable to a charter city, and to bitcoins. 

Sure, by liberals who desire to prove their own superiority.

Corporations can only function under the legal protection that is the state. Anyways, move this thread to politics.

Its not about superiority, its about priorities. I said nothing about a causal relationship. Willful ignorance is inexcusable. The science speaks for itself.

Those idiotic studies are the height of arrogance... I'm surprised you are bringing those up.

There are little to no conservatives on this forum. Non-sequitur.

I am willing to agree most people with typical conservative views are very primal, territorial and xenophobic people.

 ;D

I don't see anything there, sir! :)
In case you're wondering, I'm not a rightie at all.  I just hate it when people think that they're superior to others based on brain differences or shit like that.  Most conservatives happen to be born into bible-thumping, conservative families that indoctrinate them, but that doesn't give you the right to call yourself superior.

Anyways, this thread has now devolved into an ad-hominem flame war.  I'm outta here.

Well, the biology of the human mind is not static: It is constantly changing and adapting in the face of new information and environments; the amount is up to the individual will.

The information regarding brain differences is likely true. It's relevance is a matter of another question and answer.

Some would call this "shades of grey". I call it objective reality.

That's my point exactly.

You have my reverence, cbeast.

Cbeast is a good man. Don't resent him.

Or there might be a correlation between those who have the analytic aptitude to understand brain science and those who have a liberal bias.  That would match the general observations I have made in some of the environments I have been privileged enough to have been a part of.

Very large percentage of Bitcoin supporters are libertarian. All of us have a certain dislike of governments and centralization. But there are different degrees of this and some other differences that make someone left-wing or right-wing.

For me the most relevant distinction is the perspective on economic freedoms. Right-wing thinkers value so called negative freedoms and give no value to so called positive freedoms. Right-wing thinkers are also very strict about property rights, where a left-wing person might be more prone to think in terms of access to resources instead of ownership and they also strongly differentiate personal property and private ownership.

What does negative freedoms and positive freedoms mean? This is a quote from Wikipedia: "A key difference between libertarian socialism and capitalist libertarianism is that advocates of the latter generally believe that one's degree of freedom is affected by one's economic and social status, whereas advocates of the former focus on freedom of choice. This is sometimes characterized as a desire to maximize "free creativity" in a society in preference to "free enterprise."

My personal position is close to libertarian socialism. The Wikipedia article on it is good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

The Bitcoin community is clearly split between libertarian socialists and different types of capitalist libertarians. I think this is a great thing. I find no other place in the world where these two groups can agree on something so strongly. I've been active in left-libertarian activist movements over the years and I'm used to arguing all day long with capitalist libertarians, now I'm happy to finally find something that gathers support from both groups.

Don't confuse all of us as libertarians. Some of are anarchists and prefer absolute power on an individual level. We don't believe in postive-rights because they can only be made by degrading the rights of others.

We don't compromise on our ideal of individual sovereignty. We hold all individuals as important and they should not be compromised for the whims of others whether the slavery be in the name of compassion or otherwise. In the end, the ends are just preferences.

You want something and you justify violence, robbery and slavery to make it happen. You think you "care for people" so you hurt others to help the people you prefer: That's socialism. It's merely exchanging the happiness of people for the people you prefer.

You don't care about humanity. You're not a humanist. You're just a thug that hurts others to get what he wants. You only care about a certain humanity and it's not the people who are already happy. To you, they are evil because if you or somebody else is not happy, then nobody can be happy. You hate man in his successful form. It could be said you hate man in general because your methods will only destroy him.

First of all, that's semantics. Libertarian views include everything you hold dear. I could just as well call that type "anarcho capitalist" but it's still a libertarian position, just an extreme one. Libertarian and anarchist are sometimes the same thing, but only the radical libertarians should be called anarchists. Libertarianism is such a wide concept. Did you know that originally the term was meant for libertarian socialism? It's a relatively recent development that libertarianism is associated with capitalist libertarianism by default.

The things you talk about, violence, robbery and slavery have nothing to do with what I'm advocating. There are many types of libertarian socialism and many of them have a strong non-aggression principle. I don't believe in a system that forces people to do something. Many people generalize that all socialist thinking is something, when it isn't. The width of socialist thinking is just as wide as the different views on capitalism.

In fact, one of the major issues I have with our current system is that people have little choice. We are still stuck on an idea that it's required for everyone to do work to make a living and pay their bills, when in fact we can use technology to create a type of society where only a small percentage must work. Eventually we'll get there anyway, but we could do it now, if we wanted to. This is the kind of "positive freedom" related issue I want improvement on and most capitalist thinking doesn't even understand that there's a problem, which is sad.

Oh but it is. If I want a factory and I want to exchange with people who only want to be paid what I they are worth, you will threaten to destroy me. I can't build under your system. I can't produce. You will only limit me! I can't be a god under your rule! You will say what I can and can't do with my means to sustain, MY PROPERTY! You are a slaver but you ignore it! To you man is a domestic pet! I don't want to be leashed! I want to be a god over myself and my means to sustain!

I want to build towers that reach far beyond the heavens! Machines that produce with no limit and endless efficiency! You will claim I make people irrelevant! You will claim that what I do with my property outprices others! Constantly you will stand in my way!

I will never be allowed to build under your rule!

Slaver, that is all you are! You just want man as a domestic pet that feeds out of your bowl!

I hope this is trolling, because otherwise I feel bad for you. I forgot to mention one difference between the right and the left, wants and needs. The capitalist system does not differentiate between wants and needs, it fulfills the wants of those who have the purchasing power to buy. The kind of system I advocate would make sure the needs of every single human being are being met before the wants of any human being are relevant at all. But not by force. Only if people want such a system.

Wants and needs can only be decided by an individual perspective. Not a collective. A collective does not think nor feel. It is not an organism.

If an organism can only sustain itself by taking, it is a parasite. It is hardly sustainable life especially for a sentient society. I advocate a world where every man sustains himself by his own will. By grasping value and exchanging it for equitable value he requires; not surviving by theft nor force.

Good fucking luck. I won't pay a dime into your system. I will only pay for what I desire because it is only my action, my will that makes the resources I possess possible to exist. Again, you're a slaver. I will not be allowed to build limitlessly under your system. My goal in life is to only produce but I would only be allowed to do it under your terms.

You underestimate the power of peer pressure.

It has never affected me for my happiness isn't totally reliant on others.

Peer pressure has never affected you. That is a disturbing self assessment. Do you then act upon any urge you have, no matter how immoral or illegal it may be? Would you act on such urges if you knew there was no way you could ever be caught?

I don't believe in morality. In the end, it is just insipid preferences people try to push upon others. I choose; I do not obey. I stand under no man, no government, no god unless his tangible force overwhelms me. In that case, my mind will prevail while my body deteriorates.

I do whatever I prefer. I prefer life. I choose to sustain life while everyone around me tries to destroy it in the name of their preferences. I believe life will reach its precipice once every man and woman becomes an immortal god.

That is what I live for: the day of the gods.

For now, I will treat every sentient being as the god they deserve to be; not the ones others serve and worship, no, but as an equal.

If I worship and stand under anything, it is the beauty of man and his ability to choose.

That's all I want: absolute choice.

You mean to choose good instead of evil, right? That sounds like morality to me.

Morality has never been static. Some people view suicide and sacrifice as virtues; I do not.

I just consider these my preferences. They are not absolute.  They have no reward but my peace-of-mind. The acknowledgment of me being "a good person" gives me little to no pleasure.

If you were on the Titanic and in the face of certain death, would you offer your place on a lifeboat for women and children?

If I was old, yes. If I was young, no.

It also depends on how depressed and suicidal I was at the time.

"Remember, I'm pulling for you. We're all in this together. Keep your stick on the ice." Red Green

The term 'libertarian' was a made up word in the 1960's to replace the already corrupted word 'liberal', which used to refer to people like Thomas Jefferson, who beleived that mankind should be able to largely govern themselves and had equal rights under God.  (as opposed to a soverign ruling class with a divine right to rule)  I have yet to see any evidence that those who created and adopted the term early on were anything like socialists.

Yeah, I'm going to fix this.

This is not true. Human needs are actually quantifiable scientifically, to an extent. All humans have certain biological needs, certain psychological needs and certain social needs. All of these have elements that are fairly universal and elements that are individual, based on wants. I'm not advocating that we base anything on the opinions of a leader, group of leaders or even a collective. I'm advocating a more technocratic approach, if you will.

First I have to clarify that the wants of human beings are actually a criteria in this approach. So it definitely does not mean that everyone is fed the right kind of porridge and everyone sleeps in optimized dorms with bunk beds. This approach might fill the biological needs people have but not the psychological and social ones. All needs are taken into account and partially from an individual perspective.

Using this approach we can take solid scientific models such as the Maslow hierarchy into more practical use. Our goal would obviously be to allow every human being to reach the highest level. To be able to do something motivating, to better themselves, to be creative. But I want equality which means that we should first fulfill the two lowest levels in the Maslow hierarchy for everyone. These are physiological needs and safety. We claim our civilization is advanced and so great but still we have BILLIONS of people in the world who do not have even the basic needs met adequately.

A sane approach to society is to make sure the lower level needs are being met and then we can focus on giving everyone the opportunities to reach the highest level which is self-actualization. This approach is beneficial to everyone because it reduces crime in society, increases trust among members of society, increases mental health, physical health etc. Everything that REALLY MATTERS go up. Now we live in a society where we get kicks from our profits soaring, GDP going up, all the while the indicators that really matter go from bad to worse.