(in fact, they were quite common, where noblemen had rights to brides). This is an urban legend (Braveheart perpetuated it). If you agree with one, it's no moral reason why you shouldn't agree with the other as they imply the same thing. That people have no right to their own body and property. As a transhumanist, I strongly agree. |
|
|
|
4.In army yes, everywhere no. OK for the first three. On that one, I'd say a project is not a democracy. Look at Monero. Benevolent dictator model does works. Now I agree the benevolent part is hard to maintain  |
|
|
|
Can you elaborate on this?
Free market is an economy where there is very much concurrence cause there is no (minimal, just one simple tax without exemption) market distortion caused by the government. So a trust/monopoly can't stay long cause somebody will find a way to compete with the company or find a disruptive solution that kill his market. Government intervention in the market create rigidity and distortion, big corporation can deal with them cause they have lobbyist, lot of lawyer and have a bureaucratic organization. Small can't and are killed/never created. Some market distortion/rigidity: -intellectual property -taxes on product (don't include value added tax if it's the same rate for everything, but there is other problem with the VAT) -different corporate taxes rate -regulation, any kind -investment restriction -protectionism -legal monopoly -capital control -... We agree here to. Fundamentally, I believe that man is tribal creature (see our ape origine). I doesn't scale beyond the tribal level (200 persons). I know Norway quite well as I have visited yearly all my life and live close do it. I'm Swedish So come paying me a visit at Malla, one day, this ain't far |
|
|
|
The idea that you can have a legal entity that is other then the persons who commit the deeds is laughable at best. Sorry, I do not understand. Could you reformulate? A company (corporation) is a legal entity in itself that might be punished. For example, a bank can accused and found guilty of laundering money. But a bank can't do anything, only people can, so its actually people who laundered the money, but the guilt is put on the bank and the bank is ordered to pay money instead of the people who commit the crime. But the bank is just a fictional construct, how can something fictional do anything? It cant. It's just another government sanctioned way to reduce risk for the powerful.[/quote]Oh, I understand. Yes, this is quite an issue. So we agree on this one. I was not sure at first, but that may be because of the state of politics in France (the rightists are pro-corporations, so it mixes things). Many rightists confuse free markets with corporations. Oh, so this is not only in France. I think this is something like "money=company=rich=ennemy of the people" |
|
|
|
1.Sorry, children was not the point but just an example. So if my own perception of the social contract don't include drug prohibition ?
I don't know if you support drug prohibition, it's just an example. I want to ask you "how to decide without a moral border what to include in the social contract ?". I'd say we decide depending of the answer to this question: does the action (drug use) by design hurt s someone else? If yes, then the social contract shall prohibit it (except if every member of the social contract is fine with being hurt). I said "by design". Alcohol doesn't hurt other by design (only indirectly), most hard drugs neither. Cigarette does (in public places) Then there is the grey area of drunk parents molesting their child because of alcohol. The child is rarely in position to freely decide for himself. Same thing for a pregant women taking hard drugs. 2.Sure, you are in bitcoin  And please, don't lose time explaining what the fuck is France, this government is a so big pile of shit (but Sarkozy was same).  I must admit we got a particularly bad one this time. And it seems we could get an even worse one next time (the racist party won the latest city elections). |
|
|
|
I don't know what the opposite to hyperbole (hypobole?) euphemism "Person A uses force to take money from person B. Person B has worked for the money. What do you call person A?" Anyone would call him a thief, yet they call him the taxman when he's sent from the government. [/quote]Person a uses force => not a thief. Maybe an extorsionnist What you sentence implies is that Person B doesn't want to give money. My point is that an awful lot of poor souls (me included) wants to give money. The fact that you don't want (and a lot of people neither) doesn't suffice to call it a bad thing (but the fact that you have no choice does). |
|
|
|
You talk about how the social contract/goverment is valid because you can move from it. I point out to real examples where this isn't true. You are "normalising the exceptionnal", taking an extreme example as if it was the common state of affair. If we were talking about a specific government in a specific place in time that you like, please state so and we may continue the discussion there. Let's talk about, say, Norway. This is fairly democratic and peaceful country that none of us know well (if I choose US, I would be at a disadvantage and you would if I chose France). OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation. My position is that of a moral one. You say that there is an demand for taxation and use the idea that somehow a demand for something is an argument for it. I merely point out that if you take that argument and apply it to another situation such as child porn, it doesn't hold, therefor it can never hold that demand for something makes it right. My position is the same as Anon136, it does hold - under certain condition. But I am an utilitarist, this probably explains that. |
|
|
|
Invalid argument, people are richer in a free market economy cause they are more productive and productivity increase faster. Sorry but economic theory and reality prove this everyday. I am not convinced. Take infrastructures. I requires a long-term vision to put them in place and I can't believe a free market would create them. It would create a road and plumbery for this very building and the next one and it would be done in a ad'hoc way, resulting in a lot of incompatibilities and kludges and thus loss of efficiency. Central planning has its merit. Would TCP/IP exist if it was not a central planning? We would a bunch of proprietary protocols (because it is more profitable for its creator) and we all know what is means. Not a lot of persons are ready to voluntarily lose for the greater good. |
|
|
|
2.Anti trust law are a government solution to a government problem: market rigidity cause of regulation. Can you elaborate on this? |
|
|
|
I understand your point, i wanted you to answer this. So in my own perception of the social contract public school is not something i agree with. How do we decide without a moral way to reflect about the place of government ? This is tricky because we are talking about children, who don't have the right tool for free-thiking (this is scientifically proven, even anticipating doesn't happen before age seven, the part of the brain devoted to this being underdeveloped). I would tentatively say that children should be taught to exercice their critical thinking. There is a need in society to learn a corpus of value and references that tie people together. The schoolyard is a great place for this (and courses too, but different ones). I don't believe in homeschooling but since it illegal in my country, I can't talk about it, I have no experience, even second-hand, about it. And Thieves Emporium is a fiction about a failed USA that turned to a police state. You follow a young mother who try to survive in an agorist economy that take place in the deep web. It's not a philosophy book, more a book about how the western world can turn.
I did not know agorism. I quite like the idea. The idea that you can have a legal entity that is other then the persons who commit the deeds is laughable at best. Sorry, I do not understand. Could you reformulate? Of course companies are against the free market, they are a product of the state and benefit from state protection and can use its law to drive out competition. So we agree on this one. I was not sure at first, but that may be because of the state of politics in France (the rightists are pro-corporations, so it mixes things). If people don't want to be productive they don't have to. A lot of people could live very simple lives if it weren't for inflation, taxation, debt and the constant need to grow the GDP to satisfy your debtors. I honestly don't know about this one, neither on one side or another. As a general rule, I am suspicious against any magical formula, whoever announces it - a someone say "listen to the one who is looking for truth, be ware of the one who found it". |
|
|
|
Oh, tell that to the people born in Syria, North Korea or any other horror state how they should just move. How about the Palestinians? The Jews in Germany. Strawman fallacy bordering on Godwin point. I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".[/quote] The horrors of prison is very real. You keep talking like these things are not real because they aren't happening to you at this very second. So is the horror of living under the bridge because you are pennyless after you boss fired you and you can't get an new job. Let's face it: we won't have a productive conversation that way. I'm talking about avoiding hyperbole (slavery for citizenship) and you reply by engaging in a slippery rope that avoids talking about the real thing (here, abuse of hyperbole). Are you honestly saying that people are not being kidnapped and put in the rape camps known as prison for defying the state by asserting their own rights to property and body? Ditto (I hesitate between loaded question and strawman, through). Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)? There is also a demand for child porn and slavery. It doens't matter if there is a demand for things that are immoral. It does not make them any more moral. Of course there is a demand for free money by the people who benefit from getting them, and the power they bring. OK, I quit. It seems that you main argumentation is about invoking various avatars of Godwin. I will continue this conversation with Anon136 until you revert to a more contructive argumentation. A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here). You are free to sign any contract you want. Where do I confuse this? You are not, I was just making a point. Sorry if it was unclear. The fact that you can't refuse it says it's not a real contract, but a form of slavery. I must admit you argumentation is interesting here - a contract that you can't refuse is not really a contract, it is closer to slavery. But your use of hyperbole still annoys me. Slavery is in my view to strong of a word, even if the idea is similar. So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't. First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not! Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level. I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die. You are free to offer any social safety net you wish. Why do you feel the need to force people into it by the threat of violence to gain their possessions to redistribute? No anarchist wants to stop you from setting up a working safety net that you may opt in to. The very idea that you would need force to do this seems to imply that you think it's a failed idea, because people can't voluntarily do it. See my answer to Anon136. Safety net like an insurance, maybe opt-out instead of opt-in (children and insufficiently informed people). Now that I think about it, it is close to the Theory X and Theory Y (X=people are stupid, we shall protect them against themselves; Y=people can be empowered) So, my vision of interventionnism is more like an opt-out insurance. |
|
|
|
The question is, if i preferred not to fund the net would you extend the same respect to me that i extended to you by not using violence to try to prevent you from funding it and not use violence against me to try to force me to pay for the net? (I would if it were empirically demonstrated to be truly effective and well tuned like you say, but lets say i wouldn’t just for the sake of the argument). For first, I am not sure I understood your sentence, so please correct me if I am wrong. If you don't want to fund the net, no problem. You're out of the equation. You don't want to participate, then if you fall down, I won't help you, I let you die in the street if that happens (it would require people to know what to answer to their son asking 'dad, why he is dying and no one does a thing?' but that should be easy). That's a contract, you refused it (because you gambled you would not need it of for whatever reason). No problem here. So, yes, I would respect and respectfully let you die I have to say I have a problem with "society should protect people even against themselves" ( common interventionists trope). I consider society should protect people against lack of sufficient information to make an informed decision. But once it is done, its everyone's business. |
|
|
|
A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
What will make people richer is an increase in productivity per capita, but the state prevent that by his interventionism in economy. No need for coercion. A lot of people don't want to be productive. They have another vision of life. They want to live a simple life with their family, go fishing on a Saturday and have money to buy a gift for their son's birthday. What do you answer? That is it the governement's fault if they can't? I consider that major companies are not encouraging the free markets, this is bad for their business - when are atop, you want to stay atop, oftentimes by any means necessary. How do you see anti-trust regulation? For or against the free market? |
|
|
|
Na. Some capitalist anarchists like myself are consiquentialists. In theory we would be willing to support taxation if it lead to the right consequences. Some people would argue that we are not libertarians, but I think we are. So you are not against the principle of taxation, you are against the actual implementation, am I right? (like CryptoNote is great, but the Bytecoin implementation is not) |
|
|
|
You are trying to bring the debate on something else than the initial discussion. It was about "Are taxe inheriently evil?" not about crypto in particular.
Nope, i want to debate on the "social contract" theory cause you justify taxes with it. So if this theory is false somewhere you lose your argument. OK so I don't believe (or, say otherwise, "my own perception of the social contract is") that Bitcoin shall be censored, nor shall people be spied upon (they can accept to be monitored, but only under full consent). Does it make you better understand my point? By the way, discovered minarchism some months ago and I have some sympathy to it. I may contemplate reading Thieves emporium, but I have very little patience for extremists of any kind - I'm not saying that Thieves Emporium is extremist, I did not even read a review of it yet) |
|
|
|
So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't. First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not! Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level. I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die. |
|
|
|
So if social contract implies censorship of bitcoin and hard informatics regulation, repression and spying of the citizen (like in "Thieves emporium", seriously read this book  ) to be sure nobody use it illegally is ok ? You are trying to bring the debate on something else than the initial discussion. It was about "Are taxes inherently evil?" not about crypto in particular. |
|
|
|
Yeah ! Another debate between leftist and libertarian on bitcointalk, the last was so useful... I'd say either "leftist" and "rightist" or "interventionists" and "libertarians". I prefer symmetry in wording. I created a new thread to not pollute this one: Libertarianism and interventionnism. I won't answer on this topic here. |
|
|
|
This looks like fear of the long arm of the law to me. It is understandable for an individual, but not for a citizen.
I pay taxes because I want children to be educated, hospital to work, road to be in working state, science to progress (and the fact that individual corporations can achieve it concurrently is not enough of an argument for me). You are not a citizen by choice. Citizenship is a form of slavery that says we own your body for being born in a certain geographical area. I believe in society, even if I agree that inefficiency and outright corruption plague the world. What do you mean.. you believe? Like in a god that you want others to be forced to sacrifice to? EVERYONE wants a social situation where they can function as human being. Taxation is not a necessity for this Quite the contrary. To introduce violence and coercion to system ruins it for every honest player. One shall not pay taxes because he is afraid of getting caught. One shall pay taxes because he believes in the project called society. To make a conceit, I'd say the fundamentals are strong, even if the implementation leaves an awful lot to be desired. I really believe that a nation could use a cryptocurrency as its main tool, even an anonymous one like Monero. Then it's not taxes. Paying for services you use or want others to use with your money is just normal commerce. No need for adding guns to the equaiton. People are complaining about greedy bastards and selfish miners, but what is paying taxes lest being caught? Not that different. Now, I agree that one shall have the right to refuse (and thus leave society) and this is hard to the point of being practically impossible at the moment (international waters or outer space, anyone?). The differnce is that taxpayers support the system where "greedy" miners are kidnapped and/or killed if they resist forcefully giving away their profit. - Life is full of things that you did not decide (like being born human). Better to light up a candle than to curse the darkness. Although this is not perfect (perfect would be close to international water or better yet outer space), you can move to another legislation and change your citizenship.
- A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here). When you say that "taxation is not a necessity", you are expressing your own belief, not an immutable truth (immutable truth are the province of hypothetico-deductive systems like maths and chess).
- I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".
- Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)?
A bit off-topic but since you are pursuing a non sequitur fallacy regarding belief: the Catholic Church (despite all the atrocities it perpetrated) did a fine job (till year 1000) in perpetuating a semblance of civilisation in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. And I'm saying this as an agnostic. I have a pretty consequentialist vision of things. If mankind constantly balances between individualism and collectivism, between liberalism and interventionnism, betwee, private interest and public interest), I believe (yes, believe, please let me sacrifice someone on an altar) this is because it is the best reflection of his aspirations as a species. Human is social animal at heart. It is a monkey (living in tribe-sized community in the jungle), not a lion (strong enough to live by its own) and not an ant neither (completely devoid of individuality). Both ardent individualists and ardent collectivists are extremists in my book. It's all about the balance. Of course, where to place the balance is a hard question, probably without definitive answer as long as the human brain will be what it is. |
|
|
|
Probably a recurring topic, but since I "accidentally" started such a discussion and people wanted to reply (and also because I have throwing away a long answer ^^), I am opening a thread here, I believe it is the best location. Original discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8597628#msg8597628It is self-moderated. My thread, my rules. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
