Bitcoin Forum

When I read this writing, I immediately was reminded of how this forum operates and the behavior of people around here operating under the self proclaimed title of "scambuster" or something similar claiming to be doing a "service for the community".  In reality they are only seeking public justification for relentlessly harassing targeted individuals so they can continue to do so without repercussion, at the expense of the entire community. Social justice warriors are active here on Bitcointalk, only here they like to call themselves "scambusters", and they are every bit as obsessive compulsive, narcissistic, and fascist. Unfortunately this is a global issue, not just effecting Bitcointalk. Real oppressors always wear the skin of a liberator, this way they can get all of the true believer's packed with cognitive dissonance to mindlessly dump hate upon targets they designate. This is a growing problem for all walks of life. Please be on the alert for this sociopathic behavior disguised as justice.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/joshua-goldberg/2014/12/when-social-justice-warriors-attack-one-tumblr-users-experience/
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/creating-a-culture-of-denunciation/

If you're pissed at VOD it's a good bet you're involved in some shady shit or something. This forum could have saved me thousand if I had been member back in 2013 when I placed a "pre-order" but alas good 'ol phinn didn't use big enough bright coloured text in his posts.

Comparing people who point out scams to the social activists we all hate and we know are full of hot air is just wrong and playing on peoples emotions; a sociopath MO buddy.

https://i.imgur.com/WSbEP1Z.jpg

Remind me where I said VOD? This is an issue bigger than just VOD. So because I point out the abusive behavior of self proclaimed "scambusters" I must be up to something shady right? Lets ignore the fact that I have been registered here since 2011, completed hundreds of trades, and been trusted with thousands in value upfront and met all of my agreed obligations. I am accusing one of the holy gods of scambusting, I MUST be up to something right? Funny how there is literally no one that can accuse "scambusters" of abuse without accusations of them simply retaliating for being busted scamming. Then when some one like me with an impeccable trade reputation comes along, they have to try their best to destroy it so the points raised can be invalidated because "he is just a scammer" so no need to even think about the topic. Take a look around, when you decide what you think I am up to let me know ok? Until then keep your mimicking refractory drivel to yourself please.

Back to the actual topic...

Today I found yet another article related to this mindset which I think is infecting all walks of life (not just this forum). Funny enough it also has close historical connections to this Marxist type of social justice warrior mindset. I believe they are both intended to be complimentary forms of societal conditioning to ensure compliance under an unpopular system of control. Unscrupulous individuals just take advantage of this larger societal state in order to invoke their own mob action for personal use, just by using the existing cognitive dissonance and tension.

http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/creating-a-culture-of-denunciation/

(for example in the case of "notbatman', he has been robbed in the past, therefore his cognitive dissonance makes him predisposed to defend abusive "scambusters" and be hostile to anyone who questions them because he believes this will save himself or others from future losses like he has suffered. Therefore based on this assumption "scambusters" must be just, and anyone who questions their behavior must be unjust. Clearly this is a much better strategy than personal responsibility in his mind. Unfortunately this will not get his money returned to him, and in fact predisposes him to being robbed again since he is dependent on others to warn him rather than learning these precautionary skills for himself.)


https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_bpdWsOrotV0/SwQrlpmxNTI/AAAAAAAABMM/L9KGQkpXGj4/s1600/cognitive-dissonance%2B1.jpg

I am not surprised to see Tumblr posts in this article. There are so many SJW posts on Tumblr (http://www.reddit.com/r/TumblrInAction/)

If you call for violence against white heterosexual men you're on the same level as far-right political parties, Islamic extremists, etc. - if you want to kill people: join the military.

There's a huge difference between people going after scammers, particularly proven scammers and these scumbags who try to justify the surpression of free speech and expression with their alternate realities. Sorry but you're creating a pretty shitty argument here and yes, I'm inclined to agree with the others. You're acting like other people who get accused and instead of ignoring bullshit accusations like an intelligent person ( At least if it's true that any of them are innocent ) you decide to escalate everything by making passive aggressive threads about it which just make you look worse.

After the fall of the soviet union western liberalism turned inward and decided to cannibalize itself.
The cannibalism gave birth to identity politics and the current wave of SJW insanity .

Is there really a huge difference? Because psychologically speaking it has all the required elements for any other sort of definition of a social justice warrior. Additionally a lot of these "scambusters" actively try to suppress free speech by engaging in mob shaming and abusing the trust system to punish those who have dared to criticize their true belief of self righteousness. As far as an argument, I never really made one. I did however make an observation about the correlations between the motivation behind both types of this behavior.

Remind me again, what am I accused of? Yes, these people should just ignore the fact that they have had years long reputations ruined for no good reason. They should also just ignore the loss of sales too right? Because ignorance solves everything now doesn't it? Funny how you managed to make this discussion about me again rather than the topic at hand. I know you are fiending for some more drama to feed off of here, but please try to stick with the topic of the discussion no matter how much you just love talking about me over and over.

The modern SJW mentality is almost like it is right out of the works of Karl Marx. IMO this was always the Soviet Union's strategy for dealing with the US, rot it from within by destroying our moral fiber and national unity then by dividing us into as many splinter groups as possible so we will do nothing but fight ourselves.

That wouldn't surprise me, but have you considered the possibility that SJWs might be doing their lynch-mobbing thing as a reaction to a "justice vacuum" in capitalism?

In the extreme opposite from socialism, it's a dictatorship of the rich, powerful, and infinitely corrupt. If money can buy "justice" and might is right, then the very concept of justice has been forgotten. Since social intervention does not fit into the more idealistic versions like libertarianism, it's only natural that its "source" is blamed on something else, like Marxism. I'm sure that one of those "your logical fallacy is..." fallacies will cover blaming X (SJWs) because Y (socialism/Marxism bogeyman) looks ugly because of its other flaws.

Of course I have considered it. I am not attempting to have the Capitalist vs Communist argument, because frankly I think they are both two sides of a flawed dualist dialectic just like Republicans vs Democrats. IMO they operate as two sides to the same corrupt coin. The very way this SJW mentality thrives is on the cognitive dissonance created as the state of the environment collapses and people reject their current belief systems for a reactionary polar opposite stance, which unfortunately just feeds into the next prescribed wave of abuse of those "fresh" ideals. It dovetails in perfectly with the Hegelian dialectic: problem - reaction - solution.

Just like Republicans get elected and abuse Republican ideals, and Democrats get elected and abuse Democratic ideals, the abused Capitalist ideals will soon morph into abused Socialist ideals. All it is, is a switch up of the flavors so too many people don't realize how much shit they are eating from both sides.

You are wrong guys, social justice or social equality is not fascist, it's socialist !!

All these equality dumbasses and the stupid herd that follows them, they are all leftists. Social justice by definition is socialist, a fascist justice would be one where the big corporations would decide policies through the approval of the government, but these lefist equality groups are all leftists!

So you can correct the title of the thread, they are leftists!

This is an oversimplification. The political cannibalism you're describing is a byproduct of the capitalist system cannibalizing itself in western society for the sake of maximizing profit. We have a situation today wherein both suffering and empathy are growing by orders of magnitudes, SJWs emerge where these two forces meet. Both forces can not survive this meeting, and human empathy isn't going anywhere. Ergo, capitalism's days are numbered.

“The strategic adversary is fascism... the fascism in us all, in our heads and in our everyday behavior, the fascism that causes us to love power, to desire the very thing that dominates and exploits us.”
― Michel Foucault

A better world awaits just over the horizon.

Yours in compassion and solidarity,

World Citizen Beliathon

http://blog.changeheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tumblr_lzcqrllcc71qm8fzgo1_500-1.jpg

You know that the nazis were socialists right? Your definition is an oversimplification at best, and confirmation bias at worst.


So, your argument is that capitalism is flawed and socialism is not? I think you are missing the point. "Social Justice Warrior" in the context I am using it in this thread is not a state to aspire to, but a form of self serving obsessive compulsive control freak behavior veiled in a layer of superficial righteousness.

Of course every one would like there to be justice in our society, but not everyone who is a self proclaimed social justice warrior is actually fighting for justice. Many of them are simply fighting to promote their own biases and ideals under the guise of justice, which IMO is a large injustice in itself exploiting these tensions created by exploitation for narcissistic self serving purposes. In short it is just another method of exploitation that perpetuates itself by posing as a fight against injustice.

Really? This sounds like something you just made up. I would love to see your sources for this conclusion, because psychologists have been studying nature vs nurture for a very long time and there still have been no definite conclusions. Good to know you know more then all of them and can make this conclusion unilaterally.


Do you know what the definition of narcissism is? It is by definition some one who is almost entirely self focused. People who are only aware or care about themselves don't give a shit about helping others or serving the community, they only care about the veil of legitimacy posing as a SJW provides them so they can continue to perpetrate their abuse and narcissistic feeding freely.




Ok. So you have presented a premise here. Would you care to back it up with some kind of actual observation or fact, or is an accusation as good as fact in your book?

Randomly screaming scam in bitcointalk would, probably, get good results, the amount of scams in the bitcoin ecosystem is gigantic.

Being skeptic is a good thing!

I spend 99.9% posting on Politics & Society and read what is going on in the main bitcoin forum. That is all. Bitcointalk is too big now. It is impossible to keep up with all the drama. I got a pm bait one day to participate in a thread (in a sub I never visit) regarding that fake gamergate chick. Never again.

A lot of people here HATE bitcoin. It is so easy to click on someone's posting history and have a vibe of the profile. Regardless of their religion, lack thereof, political belief, etc... You can tell if someone truly HATE bitcoin or not.



We need to keep our eyes on the main goal BTC :oBTC :oBTC BTC :oBTC :oBTC BTC :oBTC :oBTC




Everything else is just interstellar background noise.

No, people do not start with the same basic mix of qualities.  People start and remain wildly different, which is good.  Some are obsessive, some are creative and imaginative.  And some are basically driven to control other people.

Randomly screaming getting good results? So you are in favor of the shotgun method of scambusting? Being skeptical is a good thing, but just randomly accusing, attacking, and shaming people is not. You think it is a good idea to act like this because it MIGHT catch scammers?

What about all the honest people who were driven away by this behavior? People who wanted nothing but to help Bitcoin grow but found the level of harassment they received in this community not worth it and just left. What about the users who spend years building up a reputation just to have those years of work destroyed over some one's guess work? It is not like there is any standard of evidence maintained any more. Basically the rule is now if enough people scream that you are a scammer, you are a scammer, facts be damned. I argue that just one of these honest users lost is worse than having 5 scammers in their place. You know why? People who due due diligence in screening their trading partners don't have trouble with scammers very often. It is almost always people who get lazy, or take unnecessary risks that get ripped off. This is something individuals can work to prevent for themselves. You know what these people can't do? They can't replace the market force of having another user actively and honestly trading within the Bitcoin system. The shotgun method of scambusting is very destructive to the HONEST community as well.

I fear totalitarianism mostly.  Socialism and Fascism are both tolerable in moderation, but both are historically stepping stones toward totalitarianism which is what I find increasingly alarming.  What we have now is a merger of the worst of both, and of the participants here on this forum, you're work seems to exemplify this about the best.  It is difficult to say whether the Fascists are using the Socialists or the Socialists are using the Fascists to better effect.  Both think they are going to vanquish the other when they get to a point where the other is no longer useful.  The salient point is that each is catalyzing the other on the path toward totalitarianism.  This is why I've walked away from my former associations with Socialism...and I'm picking up the pace.

I just read a bit more Bertrand Russell last night about the theory and practice of totalitarianism.  The dominant school of thought is that the collective is the rightful owner of the power and it can be siphoned down to the individual level as convenient.  I always have felt innately that the opposite is more appropriate, and even when I was more inclined to associate with Socialism who clearly don't share this feeling.

At this point, the things about Libertariansm that I don't like and the things about Socialism that I do like have not changed, but I'll support the Libertarians politically.  The main reason for this is that the path from Socialism, Fascism, or today's nasty combination of both is into something truly awful.  The path from Libertarianism is toward something better as the sharp corners are chipped off.

I'll have to hope that if the Libertarians get their place in the sun, they are not immediately subverted by totalitarians, and work to help avoid this eventuality if they do.  It's a longshot, but it's our best hope.  What the Left has brought us already is to a very precarious place.  At least in the U.S...I don't know or care much about the rest of the Western world but I suspect that the starry-eyed longing that the Libs here in the U.S. feel toward European Socialist constructs won't seem as sweet as they expect if they are transplanted here.  And if they are swept across the pond by some sort of a one-world totalitarian government the outcome will end up being quite nightmarish relative to what we have today.

If modern America doesn't already seem nightmarish to you, I'm afraid you have some serious privilege that needs checking.

Sweet universe, please spare me from yet another white male libertarian...

I happen to be a white male (and straight to boot...please forgive me...I did not choose it) but I know plenty of people here in 'modern America' who are not white males and have a pretty decent life that they are quite happy with.  If your experience is different then perhaps it is more of a personal issue than one which can be ascribed to deficiencies in our society.  Furthermore, a wholesale change to something resembling your favored example society may not be sufficient to resolve whatever ails you.

So? I know plenty of people who aren't. Anecdotes abound, but data (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7rai4kfMT0) tells the real story (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/11/american-teens-are-even-m_n_4768204.html). This system is causing pandemic depression among our youth. What kind of society tolerates that?

You're right about that, but time is a healer, and I am young and patient.

Please, actually read the definition of narcissism. I get the distinct feeling you don't even know what the word means and are simply using it as a refractory cudgel.

nar·cis·sism
(när′sĭ-sĭz′əm) or nar·cism (när′sĭz′əm)
n.
1. Excessive love or admiration of oneself.
2. A psychological condition characterized by self-preoccupation, lack of empathy, and unconscious deficits in self-esteem.
3. Erotic pleasure derived from contemplation or admiration of one's own body or self, especially as a fixation on or a regression to an infantile stage of development.
4. The attribute of the human psyche characterized by admiration of oneself but within normal limits.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Narcisism


And what exactly do you base this declaration of my narcissism on? Your vast knowledge of me as a person? I don't think we have ever even talked before have we? Again this is just more childish refractory "no u!" type arguments without any basis in fact or even bothering to point out what exactly you find narcissistic. As far as my "rational" not being rational, so far I have posted a few sources referencing this type of behavior, and all I see from you so far is "NO U!".


Remind me again when this became about me? That was not an observation, it was a declaration as if what you stated was a matter of fact. I asked you for some kind of support to this, clearly you deem your declaration to be support enough. Just because I declare some people are narcissistic does not mean I condemn the entirety of humanity as narcissistic. You seem like a contrarian reactionary with nothing but refractory statements of things you know very little about. I am willing to bet this thread hit a little too close to home for you personally and now your ego is wounded and you feel the need to attack my character in order to heal your own narcissistic wounds.




So, if some one isn't already suffering a living nightmare, they clearly are part of the elite ruling class? I think you might be skipping a few levels of privilege there and assigning blame to regular people with very similar levels of privilege as yourself. If you don't like white male libertarians, perhaps you shouldn't come to places like Bitcointalk where these types congregate and then act victimized by their presence.

Am I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)? Not for long at the rate we're going.

I don't see any real 'data' in your 'data' link.  I'm not a young person and I've not been one or hung out with any for some time.  I can assure you that youth has never been all peaches and cream for most people, but the data that I have seen indicates that there are some rapidly expanding problems and they are impacting youth dis-proportionally.  It's a mystery that deserves and demands exploration.  Really, the strongest hypothesis I have about this at this time is that it is environmental and associated with food and drugs.  I really think it possible that our leaderships are at best looking the other way (and probably worse) as the pharma and food companies poison us.  From one perspective (and one I was prone to until fairly recently) it looks like fascist malfeasance, but from another perspective it looks like something which is fostered by our mainly socialist class leaderships in order to manipulate the trajectory of the collective.  It could be justified as a means of promoting various aspects of 'social justice', and absolutely is achieving this effect in some ways.  At the end of the day, it is the Left who are the most vocal and effective at promoting some of the policies which I'm feeling are likely quite awful, and I see the left to be doing so more rather than less of this as things evolve.  Thus, they've lost my support.

This thesis is why I say that it seems to me an unhealthy symbiosis of corporatism and socialism which is the real threat, and have no confidence that there is any real hope for a 'sustainable' future down the socialist path.  They lost before they even got going and I don't think they can ever recover.

I maintain my old leftist belief in the necessity of transfer of wealth.  I'd like it to occur in a very straightforward manner under extreme transparency and simple high-ish tax rates which I personally am willing to pay.  I also don't think it is necessary or desirable to get anywhere close to parity in achieving the most workable outcome however, and believe that it would in fact be extremely counter-productive.


I could probably be considered 'depressed' occasionally under some definitions and would have been labeled ADHD if the label was more widely applied when I was a kid.  I was by some teachers anyway.  I consider a lot of this shit a normal range of human behavior.  Today I should be doing something which I don't feel like doing so I'm lounging around screwing off on the Bitcoin forum.  So what?  Should I rush out and buy some meds?  I don't think so.  Fortunately I get off on try to understand the world around me and looking into as many corners as I can.  That can be done whether I'm feeling lazy or not.

Don't feel bad, most folks in your demographic are similarly incapable of processing post-capitalist thought. We're still going to drag you kicking and screaming into the twenty first century, with the evolving ethics that comes along with it. In fact, you should feel good about the fact that you will eventually grow old and pass on. If you didn't, civilization wouldn't be able to evolve.

You know, there's a lot of docs, social workers, pharmacists that need to make a living too.  And every year there are more of them.  Now expanding the categories of various things like ADHD is a good thing because it helps these people.  You should do your part, too.

;)

Hank Paulson is betting on the same thing...with real money since he has plenty of it.  I'll not bet against him.  Nor will I have any regrets about missing out on  the future which you promise.

1) I am sorry you do not share the same definition of the word that the majority of the rest of the world does, and I am glad you feel the need to tell me what I SHOULD mean when I use words. Unfortunately if you want to make your own definitions for words, you don't get to make me use them too. Also, please show me where I demonstrated I have "gripes against certain groups" (other than people on Bitcointalk). So magically by joining a group individuals don't have any responsibility any more, because to criticize their behavior is to criticize the entire ideals of the groups they choose to associate with?

2)Show me the part where I said I was better than other people. Please quote. By your logic no one can criticize anyone else ever because no one is perfect and we all have flaws. Sorry but unfortunately that is not how reality works. Also this still doesn't explain why you define me as a narcissist.

3) I never called you a name caller. I refuted your declarations and accusations and made my own observations about your need to basically take points I make and just invert them on me in a childish and refractory way with no further substance explaining your conclusions.

4) This "conversation" is going nowhere fast. Please make some sense quickly or I am just moving on to some one with a point and not just refractory shame games.

Yes i know so whats your point?

You guys confuse definitions, saying fascist is not what it is. There are fascist elements now in big corporations becuase they work together with government, that is what fascism means.

On the other hand here is another group of equality: feminist, social justice, all sorts of equality bullcrap, and they are very leftists, hardcore socialists.

So basically in current society we see a battle between big corporations (fascists) and leftist equality agitators (socialists), whom battle for their own agendas.

This one is correct. The Nazis were fascists in practice and "national socialists" in name Only.  This is basic shit folks, learn your terms if you're going to include yourselves in the conversation. Fascism is the collusion of governments with businessmen. It is a form of tyranny because the government is not operating in the interests of the people it is supposed to serve, but instead operating in the private interests of the political elite. Capitalism compels selfish men toward this end.

Any earnest student of history should by now see clearly that democracy and capitalism are fundamentally incompatible with one another.

No no, the nazis were socialists with fascist elements. They did the same socialist stuff as nowadays socialists do (welfare for poor germans etc etc), its only that they did that only with their own nationality and had xenophobia for any other nationality.

I would say 50% socialist, 10% fascist and 40% hatred and xenophobia.

Yes fascism is the decline of capitalism due to democracy and the control freaks trying to extend their power even further.

Capitalism is a perfect concept based on logic and the behaviour of humans, democracy is not.

Democracy is a scam where you give idiots power to vote in tyrants who then legitimize their tyrrany by saying "we are only doing what our voters asked for" and similar nonsense propaganda.

Unfortunately until people realize that democracy is also a form of tyrrany we can never have clean capitalism.

Like most libertarians, this person completely fails to accurately conceive how a capitalism without democracy (http://www.crimethinc.com/texts/recentfeatures/nightmares.php) would feel.

Sorry but that's the truth, i read the first few paragraphs of that article and immediately regocnized what a piece of trash leftist propaganda it is.

Capitalism without democracy is freedom. Or you want to have a society ruled by force? Then by all means go leftist, because capitalism is atleast voluntary, leftist factories as described there are just inneficient and useless.

Yes automatization will happen, but only because the governments tax the factories too much (to pay for the welfares of the leftist all-day-watch-tv types of scumbags), and employers have to reduce the costs, since already the governments force them to pay all kinds of insurances. If it werent for that, wages could become normal, and even increase.

In my country an employer has to pay 60% of the salary to the government in all forms of social security or other BS, plus it's also taxed on his own profit.

How much fucking left do you want to go if already 70% of the GDP is controlled by the fucking government.

And leftist whine about the "evil capitalists" controlling all resources when it's obvious to me that the government does. So grow up guys.

Since you are so sure of yourself on this point, and you questioned the definition of the word fascism, lets explore that definition.

1 often capitalized :  a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition

(this sounds a whole lot like socialism in the past to me)

2 :  a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control <early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism


We can get into even more detail and examine the well known "14 points of fascism"

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism  Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights  Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause  Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism  Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism  Found in socialist nations of the past?: indeterminate

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media Found in socialist nations of the past?:  CHECK

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security  Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together Found in socialist nations of the past?: Socialism is usually hostile to religion of all kinds

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK Since corporations are run by the state they are protected.

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment  Found in socialist nations of the past?: indeterminate

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections Found in socialist nations of the past?: CHECK

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.


http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html


As you can see Socialism and Fascism have many overlapping features and the two ideologies are quite compatible with each other, especially when you consider Socialism is the degradation of Democracy into the path to Fascism. As far as your site "crimethinc.com", I have seen these people recruiting at youth events such as music festivals and even purchased a couple of their books to look at them closer. They push complete propaganda garbage, and have very little if any substance.

I want a society ruled by reason, we live in a society ruled by the forces of violence, coercion, and mass deception. All justified in the name of sacred profit.

Yes, the USA is flirting with fascism and has been for quite awhile. The corporate elite desperately want to bring back the practice of slavery, only not in name. That's why they moved all their factories to places with abysmal human rights practices (China, India, Bangladesh, and so on). It's as close to slavery as they can get for their labor force, which means max profits. At this point, it's difficult even for the brainwashed masses not to recognize that the corporates care for nothing other than maximizing profit at the expense of everyone and everything around them.

You mistake me for a socialist. I'm not a socialist, I'm not pro big government. I'm a social-anarchist. Imagine you were transported back in time 150 years with your current knowledge, how would the world look to you? Ass-backwards. That's kind of what it feels like for young people who see the world very accurately today. We see a society bordering on dystopia, a civilization of misery.

I see a civilization with potential, one that has become so adept at reason in the last few hundred years that it no longer needs violence to govern itself. The only problem is, we don't know it yet. Or rather we stubbornly refuse to accept our nature as deeply compassionate primates. We are disconnected from this ancient self-knowledge, the language much older than words.

We've been governing by simple violence for ten thousand years, but reason is new. Reason is difficult and messy and complex. Even still, it has transformed our society completely and will continue to do so until our world ceases to be governed by violence at the highest levels. Or until the world as we know it ceases to exist as a result of state violence (nukes), whichever comes first.

Yours in compassion and solidarity,

World Citizen Beliathon

P.S.
Do you know what "social justice warriors" were called 150 years ago? Abolitionist fascist yankees (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolitionism), dead set on destroying the South. Miraculously, the south survived.
Today we're called commie bleeding-heart queer fascists, dead set on destroying america, jesus, and the family. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

I want it too, unfortunately socialism will never bring that.

Socialism is a demagogue wishful thinking idealist propaganda that is used by the leftist ruling class to give them absolute power.

You can't have anarcho-socialism, its a contradictory statement. You cannot force people to pay in your "commune" , because if you do then you are not an anarchist, you are a communist.

See, anarcho-socialism will last about 5 minutes then it will slip into classic communism where a ruling class will emerge that will subjugate their inferiors.

You wan't total equality? Guess what, that will never happen because humans are not born equal, every one of us has strenghts and weaknesses, you cant equalize it and you shouldn't.

What you should do is give people a free society where everyone can pursue their dreams. And that's only gonna work in anarcho-capitalism.

TECSHARE is a default trust OG and a BCT institution.

If you weren't an ignorant noob you'd already know that.   ;)

/cluestick

I won't claim to know we can make anarcho-socialism work on the same scale as industrial capitalism,  but I know for a fact that anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron and an impossibility. Capitalism is a hierarchal system using systematic violence to maintain the hierarchy, it is absolutely antithetical to anarchism. In capitalism he with the most wealth rules, always. Capitalism is an invention from the gunpowder age that translates poorly to modern society. Ethics were much simpler back then. Reason urges us forward while our fear change holds us back. For now.

Capitalism is a dead thing walking, propped up by the embalming fluid of never ending debt and austerity. It will be over soon, but not nearly soon enough.

What you described there is not capitalism, what you describe there is corporatism or fascism.

Pure capitalism never existed yet, or atleast not in modern times. The capitalism since the middle age was mostly mercantilist (government intervention, overprotection of peer merchants, anti-free trade, high tariffs, capital control,etc etc) or just simply corporativ-fascist.

You must look up the real definition of capitalism then because you don't have a slightest clue what it means.

Furthermore anarcho-capitalism also allows the existence of socialist communes, whereas anarcho-socialism doesnt allow capitalism, thats the difference. See in anarcho capitalism you can just buy up a huge property with your commune and establish there a socialist commune just like the jewish people do with their kibbutz system.

I have no problem with socialism, if it's voluntary. Sure get 1000 people and set up a socialist commune where you voluntarly agree to help eachother, i have absolutely no problem with that.

What i have problem with is when you try to force your commune on me, because i dont want to be a part of it.

That is the fundamental difference between capitalism and socialism, in capitalism you vote with your money, voluntarly (yes there will be some equality problems but as long as other people dont threaten you with force, there will be no other problem aside from envy)

However in socialism you can't voluntarly ask people to work with you, and when they dont you will use force agains them, which is the fundamental flaw with it.

--------------------------

Do you understand that the crooked capitalists, the billionaires were created by the government? They used the government as a tool to eliminate competition.How is that capitalism? It's fascism.

Furthermore in a perfect capitalism system the wealth inequality would be directly proportional to people's talents and i guarantee to you that it would be much lower than today. Every able bodied people is capable of something and in a free society they can pursue their dreams without regulation and taxes. The unfortunate will get donations from charity.

If you eliminate force from society then, and only then people can be free. And that my friend socialism can never do because in socialism the commune dictates the terms and every opposition member will comply by force... :) That's not freedom!

I agree, and just like pure communism, it never will. Both are pure fantasy.

Anarcho mean without leaders, so there's no central decision maker saying "no capitalism". However, social anarchism could only survive is a culture which loathes violence, deception, and coercion. In such a culture, the practice of capitalism would (will) be seen as despicably unethical, sort of the most modern people view outright slavery. We only tolerate subtle and hidden slavery now.

Communism faces the same idealistic problms and logical fallacies as socialism so of course it will not exist.

Capitalism on the other hand doesnt exist because a few powerhungry individuals do everything to prevent it, because then their powerhungry looting and warmongering propaganda would cease.

So while leftism is a logical paradox, and cannot ever exist morally and efficiently. Capitalism is logically possible and highly probably once we get rid of these stupid belief systems propagandized to us.


This post proves that you have no idea what your talking about. How is there a ruler in capitalism? When all of it is based on voluntary transaction.

You got a farmland, you raise chicken and sell the eggs for money (without government taxing you or health inspectors check for your eggs to be healthy ), the market will decide if your eggs are worth to be bought, and people will boycott you if you try to sell them snake oil.
However if some looters break into your farmland trying to steal your eggs, you have all the rights to defend them.

That's all capitalism means, so scale this 1 example up to 1 billion people, and it will work wonderfully. Any additional disputes can always be decided in courts, violence is never the answer.

----------------

Anarcho-socialism on the other hand is a contradictory statement. See socialism means: rob the wealthy and give it to the poor, how the fuck is that done without violence.

Socialism and communism is the most destructive herd mentality idea of modern times. It's also completely based on violence.

You can set up a commune like the kibbutz system, but you will always have parasites who will infest it, like with every free giveaway, who wont work and only get the rewards. If you force them to contribute , then you use coercion and force, if you don't then more of them will come and infest your socialist paradise and sooner or later it will all collapse.

No wonder socialism is always the decline of capitalism (see in EU right now) , as it can only happen after capitalism, because its a giant looting mechanism. After there is nothing to loot anymore, capitalism (or atleast a phony version of it) happense again, and then this cycle continues.

Or atleast it will continue until governments exist, once governments cease to exist, socialism will also be remembered as a foolish primitive idea and people realize that a contractual-voluntary society is much better than a giant and violent red-looting mechanism☭

Voluntary my ass. This is what you trot out, the tired old, "we're free because free trade" fallacious argument bullshit? Weak man, very weak. A market is a coercive force. Those without money are coerced by the system into tolerating exploitation. Coerced into being on the bottom of someone else's hierarchy, with all the suffering, shame, and other indignity that entails.

“America touts itself as the land of the free, but the number one freedom that you and I have is the freedom to enter into a subservient role in the workplace. Once you exercise this freedom you’ve lost all control over what you do, what is produced, and how it is produced. And in the end, the product doesn’t belong to you. The only way you can avoid bosses and jobs is if you don’t care about making a living. Which leads to the second freedom: the freedom to starve.”
-Tom Morello

"I see all this potential, and I see it squandered. God damn it, an entire generation pumping gas, waiting tables – slaves with white collars. Advertising has us chasing cars and clothes, working jobs we hate so we can buy shit we don't need. We're the middle children of history, man. No purpose or place. We have no Great War. No Great Depression. Our great war is a spiritual war. Our great depression is our lives. We've all been raised on television to believe that one day we'd all be millionaires, and movie gods, and rock stars, but we won't. And we're slowly learning that fact. And we're very, very pissed off."
-Chuck Palahniuk

“We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our unfreedom.”
-Slavoj Zizek, Welcome to the Desert of the Real (http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/welcome-to-the-desert-of-the-real/)

The only choice we have left now is between embracing the corporate fascism nightmare or rejecting it in favor of a post-capitalist democracy in whatever form it takes.

The only cure for capitalism is democracy at work (http://www.democracyatwork.info/), a transition to an alternative culture of economy (https://vimeo.com/4041228).

Holy shit you really have no fucking idea of what you talk about.

Can't even present a solid counterargument just regurgitate your master's propaganda over and over when it has been disproven by thousands of times.

Voluntary is voluntary, what the fuck is so hard to understand about it.

You are not exploited by your boss at work, and he doesn't steal capital from you. You voluntarly signed a job contract with him when you hired you. Unless he points a gun at your head, the agreement is completely voluntary, you can always leave.

You can always leave an exploitative job, but you can never leave government control, so your are full of crap.
Also if you dont like the job , quit and create your own business how about that, it takes 5 seconds to think of it and you fail to do even that.

The first 2 quotes are lunatics who can't think even 5 seconds about it, and the 3rd one is abstract and its offtopic.

So it seems to me that voluntary solutions always hang around, if you fail to see them that's your problems, but don't tell me that they are not there.

It's almost as if you leftist guys are hating success and want everyone to be robbed because your envy and laziness just cant tolerate somebody having done more productive things than to watch TV all day and live on welfare.

If one was hungry at the moment the contract was signed, coercion was at play and the contract was signed without true consent. This applies to approx 90% of Earth's population.

Think of banknotes as freedom tickets and it will make sense. Only the super rich will ever be free in this system, that's why they've convinced everyone else that they too will one day be millionaires (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SKEODtaQUU).  

"Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires"
-John Steinbeck

Yes so now your solution is that we should totally get rid of all "would have" "should have" situations aswell.

It's like if you are envious that 1 guy won the lottery of 100m $ and everyone else lost. So let's redistribute the lottery prize a good idea isnt it? Well hell no, thats not the point of the game. The whole point of lottery is for alot of people to enrich 1 lucky guy, and it's voluntary.

On the other hand, because 1 random guy is unlucky we should steal from all employers to feed him. How is that not coercion?

Also wtf , the employer gives him the job to begin with, if it werent for him risking his capital to run the business, the government would not have any subjects to steal from and give it to somebody else.He gives him the job so deal with it.

Why is it the employer's fault that he is unlucky? Why is it the lottery's fault that X person didnt won the jackpot?
Why should both of these be robbed according to your theory?

You are a statist Beliathon!

Negatory, I just see the world more accurately than you do. Capitalism absent government is a nightmare.

Yeahhhhh, I've got some bad news (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PK-netuhHA), homeslice. You don't know shit about the lottery, it generates 2 billion dollars a year for the state of Oregon. Now who's the statist?

No banknotes are representative units of the global wealth (or atleast it should be, if the banks would keep 100% reserves , i think we both can agree on bitcoin atleat isnt it? 100% reserves & no central bank)

I already went over this: SUPER RICH PEOPLE ONLY EXIST BECAUSE THEY USED THE GOVERNMENT TO ELIMINATE COMPETITION!

How hard is it to understand. In a free society, wealth would be much better distributed, without coercion, based simply on skills & dedication!

Those central bankers running the global debt ponzi scheme obviously got lucky by exploiting the naive ideas. But guess what your leftist comrades are doing the exact same thing, they just want a different kind of tyrrany, you know the people...

Oh but it took roots in Venezuela and we all see what a paradise it is thanks to socialism.
 
✓Kids being killed on the street by cops
✓The protect & serve honest cops only beat people up because they protect us
✓Capital Controls
✓Buy food for tickets and limited amount =food rationing
✓Huge taxes
✓Total government tyrrany
✓Collectivized labour
✓Daily dose of tyrrany
✓Media propaganda
✓Total control you cant do anything besides work&eat&shit&reproduce to give life to the next generation of slaves
Your socialist paradise indeed :)

Well so far you havent addressed my points with valid arguments you just change subject.

If socialism is so good why does it have to be forced on us? Why can't i just be a capitalist and mind my own business and you buy yourself a region and create a socialist commune for you and your allies and everyone coexist in peace.

Because as i understand you also force me to adhere to your nightmare system which is exactly statism



Yes thats true, so how is it the lottery's fault. It's the government that steals the money, can't you realize that.

How about we dont give internet to you because your ISP pays taxes to the government, would you accept that situation? Based on your logic.

The lottery is a tax on people who have a certain kind of idiocy, and it's highly regressive.  It would be more responsible on the part of the state if people had to take a test to prove they understood statistics and probability before they were allowed to play.

Oregon's new 'low carbon fuel' tax will be a similarly regressive tax.  I've got money so it will be an nuisance to me but people closer to the edge are going to have some real hardships.  It's primary goal is just to make a certain class of eco-centric people feel like 'they' are 'world leaders' in 'saving the planet.'  And, as we see with the Cylvia Hayes thing, to make various grifters a ton of money.  Doing shit for show is one thing, but doing it for show and socking others with the bill is quite another.

These are two of a huge number of examples of left leaning politicians failing us.  How the Socialists think they are going to solve the distribution of wealth thing using regressive taxation is beyond me.  I don't think they even care about it all that much or at best they are planning to get around to it later.  Since a lot of them are exploiting the hell out of these regressive taxation schemes for a variety of projects (including making themselves and their friends rich) I'm not holding my breath for them to change any time soon.

So that's all you can say, a picture of a statue.

It's really lame, i addresset every point detailed, yet you can't even debate me honestly by re-addressing my points.

Maybe because you can't even defend your believes. How could you when obviously they doesnt make sense.

Many well educated PHD leftists failed to logically prove their claims, and their moral right to rob & cage people, so how could you prove it, you obviously cant.


Don't be so radical, it's just a game, most people know that they`ll never win, it's all about the chill and the thrill of winning, it's more like a fun game.

If somebody plays the lottery for the sole purpose of get rich quick then they are really dumb, but 90% play only for fun, the same with casino gamblers.

So we should neither tax it nor ban it like many idiot powermongers want it. It;s not their business to interfere in other people's lifes. We are grown adults we should be capable of thinking for ourselves.

Those who ask for the wisdom of the state are probably stuck at the level of a 5 year old asking their parents for advices.


Don't even try to argue with leftists, it's obvious that even they dont understand their theory, and cant defend it, so they expect us to defend their theories, haha..

I came across this video and found it very relevant to the OP of this thread, and how scam accusations work around here. In general he is arguing the insanity of limiting people's speech to limit offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oSxdZcCNlM

This guy is full of shit, damn near every argument he makes is reductio ad absurdum, he even admits it at one point in the video! I love that the students keep calling him out on his shit, that's hilarious.

Science demonstrates why internet arguments are usually fruitless (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qe5pv4khM-Y). Our brains are incredibly biased, and arguing often triggers flight or fight response.

It becomes about winning the argument, rather than about getting to the truth of the matter.

This rings a bell. Funnily enough, one could say that internationally, we already have anarcho-capitalism.

• Is the world leaderless? CHECK!
• Are there various socialist communes, AKA cities and countries and the like? CHECK!
• Do disputes get resolved using a merit based system, with simple metrics like fire-power, cannon fodder and land resources? CHECK!

What exactly were you complaining about again? ;D

What did you drink today bro?

Is the world leaderless: Presidents, Prime-Ministers,Kings,Queens, Dictators, how you call those? Our friends or our tyrant rulers?
What happense if you don't follow the orders of your neighbor? Nothing.
What happens if you dont follow an executive order? You go to jail.

So it seems to me that power is pretty much constrained in a few hands, not to talk about banksters and other ruling classes.


That only proves that socialim exists, it doesnt say anthing about an-cap. But the question is ,

Is there any place on Earth where there are no tyrant rulers? And the answer is no.

They even claim ownership of fucking Antarctica and 100 m^2 islands in the Pacific Ocean, heck they even partitioned the fucking Moon.
So the tyrant's powergrab is really limitless, if they could they would want the whole Universe to rule upon...


Yes but the civilized part, the courts are mostly biased when it comes to political cases. As the justice system itself is run by the government and paid by it, so dont tell me they dont have influence above the judges.

As for the agression part, see that's the problem, that violates the NAP. The fact that governments run huge mililary and can kill billions of people with nukes, is not really a sign of peaceful society.

Not to say if machinegunned police breaks into your house, full surveilance ,etc etc.

It's a pretty totalitarian world that we live in, with minor exceptions that are not like exceptions but more like moderate societies.

Iceland,Switzerland,Hong Kong,Chile and others are not totally free societies but they are closer to freedom than others, unfortunately the rest of the world is fucked up.

Regional leaders, not "leader of the world".

But you just said...

???


So you deny that it's anarchy in the background, which allows all these more organised systems to form on top of it?

The powerstructures are getting more and more interconnected : UN, EU, Bilderberg and more

It's not regional, if it were regional then only the region leader has power over the region, and not on the entire planet.

The USA military is pretty much inside every western country, thats not regional.

We long surpassed the regional era, which was with the middle ages, and self-sustaining city-states each with their own tyrant. It's a much bigger tyrrany now.


No, you hijack my words. I only said that an an-cap society would tolerate an-socialist local regions, if they would play by capitalis rules as of:
-Purchase their own land, and build their own socialist paradise there
-Don't threaten outside capitalist by taking over the world and converting people to socialism
-Respect the non-agression principle with outsiders and neighboring properties

If they follow these rules, then inside their compound they can do anything they want, however the outside world would be capitalist an they should respect other's property then, even if inside their territory they would have "no property"

This can't be said vice versa. Because if the whole world would be anarcho-socialist, they would persecute an-cap people as they would claim that all property is common and I can't own a house for example.

So this is why an-cap is freedom, and an-socialist is just another form of tyrrany. :)


Yes i deny. The background of tyrrany is a long tradition of tyrranical rule that people got used to it.

There was anarchy some hundred thousand years ago, but then some caveman thugs decided to rule above all other caveman, and since the cavemen was frightened and didnt understood the things clearly, he subjugated himself to it.

Today we can defend ourself agains tyrrany, even a weak woman can defend himself agains a muscular thug by using a gun, the world got more "fair" today.

The only reason nowadays people accept tyrrany is because of tradition and their own ignorance, that they got used to it and never see the alternative peaceful solution to things.

So you believe that speech should be controlled in order to protect people from offense? How does this effect the free exchange of ideas and discussion of how to improve the world by doing so? Please explain to me exactly what about his argument is incorrect and why. Just because he used reductive examples does not automatically make his arguments incorrect or fallacious.

As far as your video, if your opinion is all humans are incapable of debate and reason, then what are you doing here wasting your time pushing your worldview?

As usual the socialists run away when confronted with the faults in their logic, because they have no actual substance behind their arguments, just platitudes that play on your emotions.

Why do you feel the need to put words in my mouth? If I believed that, I'd have said it.

Yet again, not something I said. Being incapable of reason is not the same as having a closed mind about certain issues which make libertarians feel uncomfortable. Modern wage slavery and inhumane working conditions, for example. Or the wholesale abandonment of Detroit.

I wonder how much mental energy it takes to support the cognitive dissonance present in a white male libertarian capitalist american in 2015? A stunning vacuum of awareness when it comes to privilege. How finely you have sculpted your mind to avoid these truths, truly it is a work of art.

http://media.philstar.com/images/the-philippine-star/headlines/20150325/poverty.jpg

Deep down you know it is only good fortune that spares you from their suffering. Just as easily could have been you, just as easily could be your grandchildren. Try not to think about it, empathy hurts!

Not to offend you, but you are either wilfully ignorant or just nuts.

The whole suffering in africa,middle east and other impoverished places were done by the government!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The colonial era pillaged and looted all resourced from natives.

And now they are looting it through the established central banking system.

You know the whole OECD, IMF and World Bank's mission to eradicate poverty, IS CREATING THE FUCKING PROVERTY IN THE FIRST PLACE.
With their fucking fractional ponzi scheme that they force on the whole world.

How naive must be a person to not comprehend it?

If we would let africa trade freely, without capital controls, it would turn into Hong-Kong in 2 years.

Instead the governments ship AIDS there through the catholic church and other bullshit propagandists and destroy them.

If you really cared about them then you wouldn't advocate the same beast propaganda that has been SEEN hundreds of years ago...

===========

Also you didnt even had the courage to respond to my early post, so did you chickened out or you have no logical argument against it because you realized deep down that your theory is full of crap.

Oh but you did. I linked a video about a man arguing AGAINST limiting people's speech in order to protect people from offense, and your response:


You clearly disagree with the man's statements. Therefore either you:
A) Agree that speech should be limited to prevent offense.
B) Didn't even bother watching it and are just being contrarian because that is what you do.
C) you don't understand any of this and are just pretending you do.

If I did not clearly state your point, perhaps you should actually declare your position instead of defining your points only by the deconstruction of the arguments of others. This is the kind of things that cowards who can not back up their own beliefs do. If you never declare your position, then how can anyone argue against it? Better to just criticize the standpoints of others, it is much safer that way and your precious believee feelees wont ever be challenged.



But you did after all say this:


So what about your statement about arguments being fruitless applies to me but not you? By making this statement you either mean just me, or everyone (including yourself). Again you seem to pretend as if you are on some higher level of thought that no one else is capable of. Not at all arrogant and bias ;)



First of all, what makes you think I am an American white male libertarian capitalist? Speaking of biases this is a pretty big one. There is no way you could know my race, gender, or nationality, and thinking you can judge this by my words alone makes you - A RACIST & A SEXIST- because you are judging people by your own prejudices about skin color and gender. Additionally I love how when a man judges people for being female it is sexist, but when a woman judges people for being male, it is just evening the balance of power! Not at all sexist. This statement also it makes clear your incredible bias, because any argument that counters your worldview MUST be from an American white male libertarian capitalist now must it? Not bias at all.

I like how almost every single one of your arguments uses emotion as a basis, as if it is equivalent to logic. A sure sign of an intelligent person with the ability for critical thought.

I think there is a pretty good chance that Belithon is a hard-core Libertarian and is playing to opposite side for effect.  Just a hunch because some of his/her material is somewhat over-the-top.  That would be technically 'trolling', but I've got nothing against trolling and do so in a variety of ways myself often enough.  I don't use a technique of creating an anti-natural persona that dominates my presence and don't use sock puppets since I find these things a bit too disingenuous, but I've got nothing in particular against people who do.  Trolls get their jollies out of a response pretty much by definition, but if their activities also fosters discussion and contemplation, so much the better.

Personally, I think you underestimate the capacity for ignorance in true believers.

Dont be fooled and dont underestimate the stupidity of the leftists. After all these people murdered 70 million people in the 20 century.

This forum has been infiltrated by leftists and hardcore statists, so i think he is a genuine communist.

Communism is even dead than capitalism, one might as well identify as a Franciscan Monk Radical. I'm a social anarchist / anarcho-socialist / libertarian socialist / person who is better at pattern recognition than you. Take your pick.

By the way, I'm happy to go on record admitting that yes, I do enjoy making libertarians (and other capitalists) squirm by exposing them to the cruelty (http://www.madamasr.com/news/traffickers-torture-profit), indifference (http://www.ted.com/talks/tristram_stuart_the_global_food_waste_scandal?language=en), and global ecological devastation (http://www.rainforestmaker.org/tropical-rainforest-destruction-reasons-and-consequences.html) of capitalism.

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Environment/Pix/pictures/2008/05/14/brazil-stephenferry-getty460.jpg

Honestly now, if we continue down this selfish, short-sighted path, where do you people think it ends? What is the logical conclusion of capitalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2Jxs7lR8ZI) in your mind? Because it's certainly not a planet your grandchildren will thank you for. The science is clear on that much.
Sooner or later we're going to have to face the facts: our current economic structures are both genocidal and suicidal, and then we're going to have to answer some hard questions about the future. All I'm saying is, why the hell should we wait?!

Your friendly local SJW,

World Citizen Beliathon

http://blog.changeheroes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/tumblr_lzcqrllcc71qm8fzgo1_500-1.jpg

Simple observation and deduction, my good man.

1. You have identified yourself as a libertarian.
2. Your use of the word libertarian in the american sense - political right pro-capitalist, rather than europe's libertarian meaning political left, often anti-capitalist
3. 94% of american libertarians are white, non-hispanic.
4. 68% of american libertarians are male.
5. You're a bitcoiner, so definitely male. Only 4% of bitcoiners are female.
6. You're a bitcoiner, so probably younger than the average libertarian, likely between 20 and 40.

http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/110613.Libertarians1.jpg

Again this is all sensationalist,  appeal-to-emotion bullshit.

I`ve heard the same bullshit "do it for your children or grandchildren"... you behave exactly as socialists, with all the appeal to emotion you do.

You fail to respond to my earlier posts with logical arguments, yet you now try to appeal to the weak-minded by emotional propaganda just as your other comrades are doing the social warriors, like the OP said.

However i happen to agree with you on the ecological devastation!!!

You know why? Because fucking corporations do the ecological devastation. And you know what a corporation is?

It's the fucking extended arm of the government. The government gives them immunity of prosecution, so they can do all the shit they want.

Oil spills, forest devastation, global warming, etc etc. All caused by the henchmen of the govenrments.

You still fail to recognize that capitalism has nothing to do with this. This is fascist-corporative greed that we live in right now, attributed solely to government.

In a true capitalist world, there would be no corporations, and nobody could avoid being prosecuted for devastating the enviroment.

-------

So at this point you must be either a troll or you have serious comprehension issues  ???

Why don't you combine a few more ideologies in there so you can be absolutely sure that if your logic is questioned you can just default to another belief system to escape from self examination or admission of the flaws in your logic. I am quite positive Libertarians and socialists are not at all compatible, they are quite antithetical. You might as call yourself a short, tall, long haired, bald, man, woman.  Additionally the claiming of logical supremacy is also a nice humble touch, especially considering you have not backed a single one of your arguments with facts or logic, just more emotional appeals, claims of superiority, repetition of buzzwords, and deconstructions of other people's logic without declaring your own standpoints. It really does not get any more cowardly than some one who claims superiority but is too afraid to detail their own ideology. In my opinion, most "social justice warriors" are just supremacist totalitarians wrapping themselves in the warm fuzzy cloak of humanitarianism to prevent detection of their psychopathy.



1. I never called myself a libertarian. You declared me a libertarian. I agree with many libertarian ideals, but I don't think I would go as far as giving myself the label of libertarian.

2. This is a logical fallacy called equivocation. You do not have a right to use the same word to have one meaning for others while another meaning for yourself. Words have definitions which are static and mean things. Words are not just tools you can use to mean anything you personally choose while telling everyone else how they should use them.

3. Regardless of your statistics, you are still wrong and are still guilty of racial bias.

4. Again, you declare me libertarian, I did not.

5. This is a reasonable assumption, but still an assumption.

6. See number 5

You can try to use unsourced statistics to try to defend your prejudice, but the fact is you are prejudiced. Also, you never explained why it is you assumed I am capitalist. You seem to be very willing to apply labels to others, yet it seems you are no so fond of labeling your own ideologies, or backing them up with facts. You also repeatedly make statements about the horrors of capitalism that I don't think even the most ardent capitalist would be in favor of, as if they would be. This is quite disingenuous and presumptive. Instead of having a discussion with individuals, you have a compulsion to categorize every statement from the standpoint of your preexisting biases, and then place those individuals within your ideological framework of choice, then act as if it is undeniable reality. This is the definition of confirmation bias.

Look I can post pictures of the horrors of socialism too!

http://cdn1.beeffco.com/files/poll-images/normal/capitalism-vesus-socialism_5293.jpg

Don't forget Lenin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, Mengistu Haile Mariam,Josip Broz Tito ,and every other single fucking leftist that existed had blood tied to his hands.

Yes so this shows how well they care about our children, to use some emotional propaganda, like they do.

They care about our children and grandchildren isnt it?

Starving children during the Ukrainian famine of 1932 resulted from the magnificent leadership of the communist scum:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/02/Gareth_Jones_Holodomor16.jpg/220px-Gareth_Jones_Holodomor16.jpg

At this point it'd be more accurate to say that the government is the extended arm of the corporations. Corporations buy politicians, not the other way around.

"Yeah, and there'd be no crime, either! And no poverty! Definitely no exploitation happening, and no pollution!"  ::)

This is the way capitalism evolved because it was the only way capitalism could have evolved. You can't create an alternate reality for a convenient defense of capitalism, and still expect to be taken seriously.

That's nonsensical, live in reality for fuck's sake.

I`m not so sure about that. Corporations do lobby and finance the election campaings of politicians, but to say that they buy them is absurd.

Politicians have way more power than corporations and they only use corporations as their puppets to finance elections, in return they get tax exeption and pay as little as 1-2% taxes, while the burden is shifted to the middle and poor class.

So it's the govenrment that uses the corporation as a tool to congregate the markets, and have more isigght into it, such as surveilance, tax control and prevent 3rd parties (which are not affiliated with the maffia system) to rise to either political or economic power.

In short, they act like a maffia.


Oh really, when did we in the existence of humanity got no government?

Capitalism was always under constand attack from the govenrments, so your point is bullshit, you keep bashing capitalism, but you fail to realize that capitalism never existed, because govenrments always prevented it!!!!

How hard is it to understand that.

I wish that were true.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130819/00581624225/50-retiring-senators-now-become-lobbyists-up-3-few-decades-ago.shtml

http://www.thenation.com/article/166809/when-congressman-becomes-lobbyist-he-gets-1452-percent-raise-average

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29

For about 99.9% of the past five hundred thousand years or so.

Your utopian fantasy version of capitalism never existed, you mean. Nor will it ever. So why even bother discussing it? It's even more absurd than socialist utopian fantasies.

Definitions of words are almost never static, but are organic and slowly evolve over time. But I agree that having a deep understanding of language is important now more than ever.

"The term libertarianism originally referred to a philosophical belief in free will but later became associated with anti-state socialism and Enlightenment-influenced political movements critical of institutional authority believed to serve forms of social domination and injustice. While it has generally retained its earlier political usage as a synonym for social anarchism through much of the world, in the United States it has since come to describe pro-capitalist economic liberalism more so than radical, anti-capitalist egalitarianism."

The right wing political machine has coopted the term libertarian to refer to pro-capitalist that is leans liberal on social issues, with the important exception of income inequality, class, and related socio-economic problems.
Only you and a relative handful (~15 mil of 350 mil of 7 billion) of other white, mostly-christian, mostly-male republican-voting idiot americans slanders the word libertarian to mean ANYTHING pro-capitalist.

And the right is desperately trying to coopt the word anarchy itself, by creating insane oxymorons such as "anarcho-capitalist".

Spend a few minutes doing research next time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism

It is true, those articles only demonstrate how corrupt spineless bastards politicians are.

The fact that corporations pay them is more like a tribute they pay so that in return they can benefit from lower taxes, but the politicians are the tyrants here not the corporations.

The corporations are greedy bastards only that do whatever to make more money. But the real tyrants are the politicians with their police state.

Oh really, i never seen a period in humanity's existence where no tyrants existed.

From the tribal era the tribe chief and their minions subjugating the other tribesman, from the city states with kings and queens, to the feudal era where the nobles acted as the minions of the king, to the modern era where the corporations act the minions of the government.

It's all the same, you got 1 huge tyrant or a coalition of tyrants who use their minions to subjugate the rest of the humans.

It's the same shit over and over again for thousands of years.

And your solution is what? Create a local "tribal style" socialist paradise. So you only change the currently terrible and overreaching government with a local, more tribalish tyrant. And then it starts over again...

Well goob job, you really give freedom don't you.


Who said anything about utopia, there would be plenty of conflict in my world too, however it could be resolved more rationally and relationships would be more voluntary, rather than forced upon us.


https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.acting-man.com%2Fblog%2Fmedia%2F2015%2F03%2FCrony-Capitalism-Pyramid.jpg&t=550&c=EehMIHINSYBVKA

Given the recent events on this forum, I believe this thread needs a good bump and review by its users. My OP is now more relevant than ever.