Who the fuck is this moron? OH, his Facebook rank is number 29! Impressive! Zynga didn't exist 18 months ago? Wikipedia says it was founded in 2007. Facebook profile credit ratings!? LOL I don't think this guy even knows the types of activities that make an entity a "bank". My favorite quote from the article: prides himself as being the fist person to coin the term “Web 3.0” during a press conference with Google CEO Eric Schmidt.
Rutkowski asked Schmidt what Google was doing with “Web 3.0” and Schmidt replied Web 2.0 was just a marketing term and that he was “the inventor” of Web 3.0. |
|
|
|
Just talk about "logic" in anarchy is already a joke, pushing it further is... ridiculous. Nothing else!
Again, your lips are moving and you're making noises, but you're not actually saying anything. Why is it a joke to talk about logic and anarchism together? Does the idea of not having rulers frighten you? |
|
|
|
Well, if you put to concept "leeching government's money" is what "Anarcho-Socialists" are dreaming of.
If you remove the crap, and scratch it well, out of anarchists you come to realize they're as different as water from wine by whatever is in front of the hyphen.
Anarcho-Capitalists:
The ones that believe on the worth of working. However they tend to overrate their own work and underrate others'.
They go pretty well with rules, actually, as long as they are the ones dictating it there is.
Have a somewhat obnoxious point of view on the humanity levels also, as they would do anything to not aid anyone (even if the poor bastard has no arms and legs).
Anarcho-Socialists:
The good for nothing folks waiting and wanting to live at someone else's expenses. Just a bunch of social leeches. They dream of a society where they can pick whatever they want for free... nothing else.
They don't get along with rules, as they just follow what suits them and such "as we go" rules keeps changing.
Have however a better humanity level, would aid anyone (or ask/force someone else - more likely - to aid someone in need).
Who needs facts or logic when you have grand generalizations?! |
|
|
|
I contacted NixiePixel through the form on her web site, just to verify a hunch... Here's the response I got. Delivered-To: chrisrico@gmail.comReceived: by 10.227.137.148 with SMTP id w20cs147907wbt; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:02:58 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.160.10 with SMTP id i10mr60557age.65.1302660176301; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:02:56 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: < admin@nixiepixel.com> Received: from gateway11.websitewelcome.com ([64.5.52.14]) by mx.google.com with SMTP id g18si157938anh.107.2011.04.12.19.02.54; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:02:54 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of admin@nixiepixel.com designates 64.5.52.14 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.5.52.14; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of admin@nixiepixel.com designates 64.5.52.14 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=admin@nixiepixel.com Received: (qmail 13560 invoked from network); 13 Apr 2011 02:11:35 -0000 Received: from gator587.hostgator.com (74.52.151.18) by gateway11.websitewelcome.com with SMTP; 13 Apr 2011 02:11:35 -0000 Received: from [72.171.231.195] (port=12135 helo=[192.168.1.107]) by gator587.hostgator.com with esmtpa (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from < admin@nixiepixel.com>) id 1Q9pPw-0002c3-8d; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 21:02:54 -0500 Message-ID: < 4DA5044D.9060001@nixiepixel.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 19:02:53 -0700 From: Nixie < admin@nixiepixel.com> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101218 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: chrisrico@gmail.comSubject: Re: Akismet: Spam - Message - Verifying You Are You References: < cbdc1b000cfa82f8a5558312067847df@www.nixiepixel.com> In-Reply-To: < cbdc1b000cfa82f8a5558312067847df@www.nixiepixel.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-AntiAbuse: This header was added to track abuse, please include it with any abuse report X-AntiAbuse: Primary Hostname - gator587.hostgator.com X-AntiAbuse: Original Domain - gmail.com X-AntiAbuse: Originator/Caller UID/GID - [47 12] / [47 12] X-AntiAbuse: Sender Address Domain - nixiepixel.com X-Source: X-Source-Args: X-Source-Dir: X-Source-Sender: ([192.168.1.107]) [72.171.231.195]:12135 Hi Chris, No, I have never visited this message board and have no idea who that poster is. Besides, do you really think I would write in such poor grammar? Sorry for the trouble (and the delay responding, I'm not at home). Nixie On 04/10/2011 08:06 AM, Chris Rico wrote: > To: Webmaster > > From: > Chris Rico > chrisrico@gmail.com> > Message: > Hello, > > I come from the Bitcoin message boards. ( https://www.bitcoin.org/smf). > There is a poster there that goes by NixiePixel, and I want to confirm > it is actually you, as their behavior is somewhat suspicious to me. > The community is small, and misplaced trust can be very undermining. > Please let me know if this NixiePixel > ( http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=7878) is the > real one or not... I will share your response with the forum unless > you request otherwise. > > Thanks, > Chris > > Akismet Spam Check: probably spam > Sent from (ip address): 208.54.40.67 (m432836d0.tmodns.net) > Date/Time: April 10, 2011 3:06 pm > Coming from (referer): http://www.nixiepixel.com/contact/> Using (user agent): Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US) > AppleWebKit/532.5 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/4.1.249.1045 Safari/532.5 > > > |
|
|
|
|
Laws are negative externalities, or at least some laws. The politicians/lobbyists that draft/pass laws don't pay the full cost of their decisions.
|
|
|
|
Please justify this. How are you forced to use fiat currency?
Well, we essentially are. Have you every tried to live without using fiat currency? Additionally, I would argue that inflationary policies are the end result of central banking, and it causes a transfer of wealth from those who get the new money last to those who get it first. |
|
|
|
Doesn't qualify for a bounty, but I thought some of you might want to donate to the funding of Edgar the Exploiter, the sequel to George Ought to Help. It sounds like you can even claim the perks, but I'm not sure how. |
|
|
|
No, I'm not saying that it's alright to let him starve. Far from it, if you have the means to prevent it. But exploiting is something else than indifference. If I refuse to help him, is it acceptable if he or someone else holds a gun to my head until I agree to help him? Again, I don't live where you live, but where I'm at you don't start paying taxes until you start earning money over a certain threshold. That usually doesn't happen until you get a full time job, which is after mandatory school. So you're at least 16 when you get your first chance of paying taxes.
You've been living in the "house" for at least 16 years. If you don't like the bills that will come you know what to do.
Ah, except my parents were forced to send me to state run education, where I was told over and over again that government was good. It wasn't until much later that I was able to come to the realization on my own, that it is not. |
|
|
|
Nah, you just aren't talking to anarchists. No rules. No rulers. Human rights.
Actually, I disagree in that there can be rules without rulers. For example, the Bitcoin protocol/network has definite rules, but there is no single person or group in charge of the rules. They can be modified and codified through community consent. |
|
|
|
So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid. Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?
Yes. Here are his options... Accept Deal: Peasant dies, family lives Reject deal: Peasant dies, family dies What's the problem? Nobody if forcing the peasant to accept your deal, but it's the only option that makes sense. I feel like you're appealing to emotion because you can't make a logical argument against voluntary contracts. No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.
Are you arguing than an individual can accrue debts for the provision of services of which they never consented? |
|
|
|
Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.
Nope... that's just reality. Maybe reality is absurd, but that's another issue. Do you feel comfortable claiming that it is not possible to protect against extortion without the use extortion? If no, then you are open to methods of doing so other than using the state. |
|
|
|
All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.
Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones. I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate? Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers. I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary. Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State. edit... That's from here |
|
|
|
Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But at least there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors". Thought experiment: A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way? He can if he is an agent of the state. What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead. |
|
|
|
Yeah, "fighting chance" is about right. Have you seen anarchistic societies?
Afghanistan, where the state doesn't have control, which is just about everywhere. Not a good place, but quite close to anarchy.
Iraq, same thing, although a semi-functional state is about to get some control in certain areas.
Somalia, quite a "shitty place" (creightos words form another thread) for a long time, and no state to speak of.
Mexico, in the cartel areas. Not good places to be if you plan for a long and happy life. All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy. |
|
|
|
Well, I use the term "state" a bit more generally than that, but would be open to the evidence that such a non-state society could actually exist, and that a path of change to that end could exist. I've read much, and seen much, that supporters of such a society have presented; and have yet to see an argument that I couldn't undermine. And if I can undermine the theory, a sociopath could undermine the reality for fun and profit. Would you mind giving a definition of what you consider a state to be, and why you believe it is necessary in order to (in plain language) protect the good people from the bad people? This seems more fruitful than me guessing which arguments against the state with which you are familiar. This is the case, it's just that very few people realize that it's the case. I really don't get what you're saying here. Why do you think that "sheep" (those who think they need the state, but don't) would more readily adapt to life without a state than those who oppose the state? |
|
|
|
And until there are no others who seek authority over others, or are otherwise willing to use violence to achieve a political end, the above society remains impossible. And that, right there, is why I am not an anarchist. Not because I don't believe that 99.9% of the human race can co-exist in an entirely peaceful manner sans Big Brother, but because the remaining 0.1% will refuse to comply. You make the assumption that States (monopolies, in a given geographical area, on legitimate aggression) are necessary in order to protect the 99.9% against the 0.1%. I believe this to be an incorrect assumption. If I am correct, I don't need to wipe out the 0.1%, just prove to the 99.% that the assumption is wrong, and show them alternatives that don't require such a large price to be paid for security. Yes, exactly. The reason for this is that the majority of the population are already functioning peacefully in society regardless of the nature of the state; and would, therefore, readily adapt to the absence of the state. Their own political viewpoints concerning the utility of the state notwithstanding. If this were the case, normal people wouldn't have such a strong negative reaction to the idea of living without government. |
|
|
|
I've nothing against (or for) your beliefs, as long as you don't try to impose them on me, I'll not react on such grounds. Just when you say "Gnostic" which means "to know God" probably many people will react with "WHAT?!"  Perhaps you need to do some research before you state authoritatively what someone else does or does not believe. Gnosticism (Greek: γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) was a group of ancient religions that combined different elements from Hellenistic Judaism, Greco-Roman mystery religions, Zoroastrianism (especially Zurvanism), Neoplatonism, and eventually Buddhism and early Christianity. It taught that some esoteric knowledge (or Gnosis) was necessary for salvation from the material world, which was created by some intermediary figure (or demiurge) instead of God.
Gnosticism isn't about "already having knowledge", you are wrong. I say this as a staunch atheist. |
|
|
|
It only took 3% of the population to fight the Revolutionary War and defeat the British Army. Anyone who believes that theft and violence is incompatible with their beliefs must also be willing to use violence in kind in order to prevent same. Anyone who believes that violence have never solved anything isn't a student of history. The means must be compatible with the ends. If I seek a society where aggression is unacceptable, I cannot use aggression to bring change. That said, my own experiences with anyone who is willing to self-identify as any form of anarchist is anti-this-state, not necessarily anti-state. The vast majority of whom wouldn't know how to act in a real condition of anarchy, while the majority of the remainder of the population probably would. The sudden absence of the state is only dangerous because of the kind of people that don't have the will or capacity to govern themselves.
For clarification, are you saying that in general, statists (those who support the institution of States) are better suited to adapting to life without a state than anti-statists (those who abhor the State on moral grounds)? |
|
|
|
That may be correct for some varieties of collectivist anarchists, but I think it's an over-simplification. On the whole, it isn't that "anarcho-socialists" prohibit the private ownership of capital - at least on a small scale - but rather their economic focus is on collective work. I don't regard small-scale capitalism as incompatible with that. In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with, anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence. Personally, I think the division into individualist and collectivist varieties of anarchist is an interesting academic exercise, but from a practical standpoint not hugely useful. I'd take anarchism slightly more seriously (I do take it seriously, just not seriously enough to identify as an anarchist myself) if the focus was on political action first, and then, once we're free to make decisions for ourselves, at that point deciding how to run our respective economies. I consider myself a market anarchist, or voluntaryist. I seek to erode support for States, as they are fundamentally at odds with what I consider moral behavior. I make no claims as to what society should look like post-statism, as long as it is as free from violence and coercion as possible. Anarcho-communism, say, seems to me to be like saying "I want you to be free to decide how to run the economy. And the economy will be a communist economy". The same applies, obviously, to anarcho-capitalists. By all means have a preference, but the first step has to be ensuring that everyone is politically free. I agree, but it seems to me that an anarcho-capitalist community would accept an anarcho-socialist one, while the reverse is not necessarily true. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
