It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money. From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.
Hi NewLiberty My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it: „There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“ That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel. The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount. They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't. No where did Von Mises say that the economy comes to a standstill. He in fact showed exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that such credit fueled booms are UNeconomic and eventually destroy the currency and credibility of what is being traded. You also don't see the rainforest populations living to old age, building computers, overcoming famine and disease, or becoming anything greater than they are. As for them not trading? Dude, check your premises. They trade with other tribes frequently. Hey Biomech, I quotet, what LvM said. And I wrote, what that means in reality (collapse and catastrophe = end of the production based on credit). And yes, the communities in the rainforests are not building computers. They are building nearly nothing, except that, what they really need. The reason why they have hundredfold less production than collectivist societies (in which everyone has 50 ore more energy slave aequivalents in tow), is because they are not forced to, by tax and interest on debt. There is no market in the rainforest. Self-sufficiency is self-sufficiency! (not to be confused with today's half-civilized communities) |
|
|
|
It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money. From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.
Hi NewLiberty My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it: „There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“ That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel. The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount. They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't. |
|
|
|
Indeed, they do 'eat themselves'. Eventually. Neither of us are likely to live to see that day, however. And if you do, you won't really enjoy the fall. Be careful what you wish for; as someone else has already noted, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself (after decades of "eating itself") and during the 90's the average life expectancy of a Russian male fell by 2 decades. Said another way, a whole lot of people died, and a whole lot more people suffered for a long time. The most likely to prosper either had huge families with access to arable land for which to grow food for their extended families, had longstanding ties in the mafia or other criminal trade organizations or both. The Swiss, quite literally, are too numerous in this modern age to be able to grow enough food to feed their own population. The Russians could do it, ...
Oh really? Thanks for these brand new informations. I have a house in Russia and relatives.
Says the matriarchial anarchist looking for others like herself!
You even can not read. You have no idea of Patriarchy and Anarchy. There has never been such a thing as a matriarchy. That's feminist science fiction. Matrilineal communities were anarchic, but never archic. It makes no sense to talk about things of which you have no idea. Thanks in advance. |
|
|
|
Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.
You even cannot spell the name of the most famous figure of the entire history of philosophy.
First, are you a German speaker? Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.
Uhuuuu. Yes, Swiss German spoken and therefore my English language is loaded with some weakness. But you never heard about autarky/autarkic/autarkical? How is that possible not to find it with google? Am I really discussing with somebody who didn't hear anyting about autarky? That explains a lot. Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane. I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim. Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.
I see, you do know really nothing about anarchy and its opposite: the patriarchy. Collectivism/Patriarchy has always been a complicity between state and church (militarism and religion). Without any knowledge of the patriarchy and its historical genesis, you will never realise what anarchy is (and always has been). Zero chance. For citizens without any knowlege in anarchy and patriarchy, I can recommend to read here: http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html
The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts. You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.
Completely wrong. All empires did expand and grow rampant, whitout any fiat. You are story telling on the basic of ahistoric science fiction. The non-business-doing, non-patriarchal, anarchistic communities do not grow and expand, because they are self-sufficient and autarkic. No surpluses are produced, as it is the case in capitalism/collectivism, where the surplus is demanded and forced by the state/church.
You seem to have more in common, ideologically, with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.
Indeed, with your ronpaulian pseudo-anarchism I do have nothing in common. It represents nationalism and christianism, the most monstrous hypercollective ever, regardless if he may be less evil than the Bushs and Obamas. On the opposite, I am a representative of the Nature, while you are a representative of a collectivist organisation of economic destruction of the Planet. I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here. Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy. I really don't think you know what the word means. Is English your first language? Yes, very difficult to find real anarchists. If Bitcoin, cryptography and other subversive tools do not speed up the end of collectivism/capitalism/economism, it will end in itself, as all societies did in human history. That's the difference between never growing/expanding anarchistic communities on one side, and growing patriarchal expanding/growing/business doing societies and empires (mafia) on the other (your) side. „They eat themselves.“ (quote: @Biomech)
First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.
He is wise enough to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.
This is a shitty (to speak in your language) statement of somebody who impressively demonstrated, that he has no knowlegde about history, patriarchy and anarchy. So, the statement is worthless. You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do. You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.
I knew it: as a collectivist by heart and soul, you think you are speaking not only for yourself, but also for 'most uf us'. Thanks for outing. Best regards |
|
|
|
Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.
An economy as a state bastard by definition is the state patronized interaction between people, which are not autark and not selfsufficient. They are not autark, because the autark communities are forbidden and have been destroyed by the state and church mafia, wich replaced the matrilinear communities by perverted, monogamous pairing families and harem families, for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money. These are the roots of accumulation and these are the historic facts. The reason why in anarchistic communities you cannot find ever rampant growing mountains of material, money, gold etc. is the fact, that they are not forced by the state mafia to accumulate such mountains of material by destroying their environment. Neither the Penan nor the Bonobo is a homo oeconomicus. In a capitalistic collectivist society, the mountains of accumulated things as well as the production grows rampant hundredfold in 100 years. In an anarchistic community (Penan) we find no production growth and no growing mountains of accumulated things.
A different question, Zarathusta, what about Bitcoin attracts you to this forum?
I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.
EDIT: I noticed that you never would commit to reading a book, if I were to recommend it. I see now that my prior choice would have been presumptive. I might recommend a different set of books as a starting point. I was going to recommend The Stealth of Nations by Robert Neuwirth, but perhaps The Beeman by Laurie Krebs would be more your speed.
To starters I would recommend this essay: http://www.miprox.de/Wirtschaft_allgemein/Martin-Symp.pdfMacht, der Staat und die Institution des Eigentums
(Power, the State and the Institution of Property)
*
Paul C. Martin
**
(Preliminary version of 26 October 2003)
Abstract
Private property as de iure institution needs a foregoing state to come into existence. The state needs foregoing power and foregoing power needs armed force. The ultimate “foundation of the economy” thus is the weapon, where possession and property are identical because the possession of it guarantees property of it. Armed force starts additional production (surplus, tribute). The first taxes are contributions of material for the production of attack weapons (copper, tin). Thus non - circulating money begins. Taxes as “census” and money are the same. As soon as defence and protection of the (property-) title power executed by armed force in war and peace needs mercenaries (soldiers from outside the power system) the one – way -money turns into circulating “genuine money” in modern sense and its material changes from weapon - fitting to precious metal and actually into any material which can be monopolized by the state.
Interest also at first is the tax (census) itself. The state, that must exist before property and
property-based contracts which only can be executed with use of armed force, can’t be
financed out of property or income which can only appear after its existence. Therefore the
state faces the problem of pre-financing itself (power, sovereignty) and it must draw on later
tributes or taxes. This “interest”, which always starts with power-based and never with
“private” titles is nothing but a discount, thereby rather a discount of the state-owned property
(monopoly of armed force) or property rights (monopoly of taxation) than any private
“property premium” or even an mysterious item that “enlarges” something. Interest than is the
partition (cession) of forced or expected income (as measured in the state-owned monopoly to
declare “legal tender”) or property (goods) by the party which will get this income or property
(goods) with other parties. The more (existing) property is ceded by the state to the private
sector or can be created as income after cession to the private sector in the private (non-state) sector the longer the process called “creation of wealth” (recte: later income or property) can endure, because the more power-sustaining taxes can be imposed.
|
|
|
|
No, it's not. Capitalism starts with the definition of capital. You don't even know what it is.
You don't even know what it is: caput = head (count of the cattle), which is the start of patriarchal business doing. There is no such thing as a non-business doing community. Even the hippy-nerds who trek out to the desert each year for Burning Man are doing business, even if they might consider the thought offensive. Capital accumulation is a required feature for survivival. There are no mammals that I know of that do not do it, and it's even fairly common among insects. Stop and think about what you believe. How did you get there, and did you consider the root principles to get there?
If you are autark and selfsufficient as a community, then you are not doing business. Very simple to understand. A selfsufficient community therefore is not doing business with others, because it is autark and selfsufficient. Also very simple to understand. You never heard anything about autarky and selfsufficiency, and about the difference to the non-autark collectivism (business)?
Ah, now we are getting somewhere. So you believe that a gift economy isn't business?
Yes, it isn't business. Gift economy is another oxymoron. A gift is a gift and an economy is an economy. „It's the economy, stupid!“ Selfsufficient, autark communities do not grow rampant and do not destroy their environment, because they do not have to do business, which has to be growing rampant for the purpose of paying protection money (census) to the rampant growing state mafia and interest to the creditors. Interest on debt is a derivative of the census (tribute) to the state mafia. Capitalism is by definition a state bastard (quote: Dr. Paul C. Martin) How would anyone give a gift, without accumulating capital first? What are they going to give, prayers and well wishes? A gift is a gift. Has nothing to do with business. Gifts never grow rampant.
The Penan are hunter-gatherers. They hunt and gather, capital accumulation by definition.
BS. Selfsufficiency, autarky and sharing (non-business) by definition. No growing mountains of material, money, gifts, gold etc. The snare is capital, so is the bow and arrow. The gathering basket is capital.
Uhh, and the bonobos are capitalists because they use some tools? What a perverted ideology, which has its roots in vienna, where some elitist aristocrats brought a lot of collectivist BS to paper. And even if none of this were true, the Penan consider the forests that they inhabit to be their property, and thus logging to be a crime against themselves and their culture. It's a collective form of property, certainly, but it's a very real concept of property. Thus, by definition, the Penan consider the forest that grows their food to be their capital.
Property? That's the sad view of a deeply brainwashed capitalistic collectivist. If you cannot see the difference between autarky and collectivism, thats your problem. |
|
|
|
In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital. They couldn't accumulate capital because they were too busy murdering each other and engaging in rituals to placate the voices in their heads. Greatest Bullshit ever; it's very sad that the so called anarchists in this forum use the collectivist propaganda of the christian terrorists. These are post-neolithic, post-matrilineal communities (reservates in territorial stress within rampant growing civilization). Today, you can find a suicide cult also in territorially stressed communities. But the cause of it is not tribalism/anarchism, but civilization/collectivism. |
|
|
|
The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.
Show me this ideal culture that you refer to. That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patri archy. That's just bullshit. There is not now, nor has there ever been, a society that did not value "capital". You just don't know what the hell capital actually is. There have been a number of different cultures that treated personal property in a different manner that I can think of, but none failed to "accumulate capital" and managed to survive long enough to develop writing, or at least be noticed by a culture that had already developed writing, in order to be noticed by history. If you can name a culture that you believe satisfys your conditions, name it so that I can point out your errors of fact. Otherwise your just another socialist troll. If somebody of both of us is a socialist troll, then it's you. Capitalism is the interaction of socialized, collectivized humans: the citizens, which are forced to do business for the purpose of paying protection money to the state mafia. In matrilineal, pre-neolitic, pre-patriarchal, non-business-doing communities, there was nowhere and never such a thing as accumulated capital. They are not accumulating, they are sharing. Some of the penan communities for example are still not missioned by the state mafia, and therefore, they do not accumulate, they do not grow rampant, either economically or territorially. Capitalism began with the patri archal, the perverted organisation of the homines sapientes around 10'000 years ago, as they began with the submission of the animals. Capital (lat. caput = head) is the head count of the accumulated and submissed cattles. It seems that you know nothing about the history of the pre-patriarchal homines sapientes. It seems that you really believe that the socialized, business doing cartoon of the homines sapientes, the citizen, is the norm in nature. That's very sad that there are so many Believers of this collectivist Bullshit-Religion, and that they call themself anarchists is a sad joke. Pardon for my english language, the globalized hegemonial language is not my native language. |
|
|
|
The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.
Show me this ideal culture that you refer to. That was human reality (and still is at some unmissioned territories) most of the time in history, until the birth of the tragedy around 10'000 years ago, with the submission of the bovine first and the human later: the patri archy. Show me the place where the word became a man Show me the place where the suffering began http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCtoVoE5Mm4 |
|
|
|
None of you could even say these things if you didn't live in a democracy.  Of course you could. If your rule/master allowed freedom of speech, dissent, etc. Nothing wrong with a King as long as he is just. The problem is just the tendency for a King to not be just. In theory you could have a just authoritarian state. It is is highly unlikely as it would require a utopian (not to be confused with utopia). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benevolent_dictatorshipNo, neither in theory nor in reality can this be just. A kingdom is a collectivist organisation, and as soon as somebody wants to rule more than one natural blood community, he needs weapons, soldiers, henchmen and organised violence, and therefore census, tribute and taxes. |
|
|
|
|
The reason why anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron, is the fact, that the one and only anarchistic (=not ruled by supra-bloodcommunity-authorities) people who ever lived in history - the non-patriarchal, non-monogamous, autark, selfsufficient, matrilineal community - do not accumulate capital and property. Accumulation of capital and property is a taboo in those anarchistic, unruled communities. The homo oeconomicus (patronized collectivist/decadent/protection money payer) is an unknown species in such environments.
|
|
|
|
Tribalism ---> Feudalism ---> Capitalism --------> ....BITCOINISM
Tribalism ---> Feudalism ---> Capitalism --------> ....BITCOINISM ----------> Tribalism |
|
|
|
I envisage a libertarian world of small co-operating communities where freedom is not just a word but a fact.
That has been the case most of the time in the history of human being, within matrilineal blood-communities, just until the patriarchal hyper-collectivism arrived on this planet, about 10'000 years ago. Since then, male gods, theocrats and state terrorists terrorize the world with organized violence, and the people are forced to pay protection money in an unnatural, perverted construct: the monogamous pairing family/harem family (homo oeconomicus) for the purpose to generate surpluses for the rulers. Bitcoin, Bitmessage etc. could hopefully be some of the tools, which end this inhuman stupidity. Stateless communities do not need an economy, because they are autark / selfsufficient. |
|
|
|
even with all the help in the world from the mainstream zionist media.
You lost me with that one, hate-monger. He's a fascist. Only he doesn't recognize it himself. Zionism, christianism, islamism, communism, capitalism, nationalism - that's all fascism and idiotism, a labor slave ethos; the merger of corporate and state power. |
|
|
|
WHY ARE YOU STILL LIVING IN THE US YOU PEACE OF SHIT!
If you do not agree with your governments laws you should just leave...
No, as someone from Europe, I would love him not to listen to you but to stay and fight the laws (organised violence) of the state mafia, and fight against people like you, the happy slaves, who are accepting and supporting the organised violence. Everybody has the natural law to fight the state mafia at home first. |
|
|
|
What is likely going to be the bottom? 64? 80? 103? 110? 113?
0.0001? 0.001? 0.01? 0.1? 1? I'm confused as to why this graph is generating so much panic in the forum today... https://i.imgur.com/YbMyqyp.png?1Yes, and this:  |
|
|
|
Nothing's impossible. Bitcoin could be trading for $10, $50, $100 or even higher over the next few months.
That's wrong. Everything's impossible, except the one and only possible past and future. There is only one world. Possibilities are existing in our brains only. Congratulations, you just rolled back about a century of physics. A century of BS-physics. But I know, some QM 'physicists' (not all !) do indeed believe, that there are 'possibilities' for the past and the future. I was referring to the "future" part of your claim. That's the same. There is only one past and one future. |
|
|
|
Nothing's impossible. Bitcoin could be trading for $10, $50, $100 or even higher over the next few months.
That's wrong. Everything's impossible, except the one and only possible past and future. There is only one world. Possibilities are existing in our brains only. Congratulations, you just rolled back about a century of physics. A century of BS-physics. But I know, some QM 'physicists' (not all !) do indeed believe, that there are 'possibilities' for the past and the future. |
|
|
|
You forgot one thing. They did it in the middle of the night on a WEEKEND.
Great test...
In the middle of the night? Do you think the Earth is flat? |
|
|
|
Nothing's impossible. Bitcoin could be trading for $10, $50, $100 or even higher over the next few months.
That's wrong. Everything's impossible, except the one and only possible past and future. There is only one world. Possibilities are existing in our brains only. The scientific consensus on quantum theory disagrees with you on that. No, the quantum world has also one past only. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
