It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...
Now that's a depressing thought. I will operate under the presumption that it is merely a cultural phenomenon until proven otherwise. State can be considered as an instrument to realize an individual's lust for power inherent to some humans (so called alpha males) in a more or less peaceful way, an instrument which has been sharpened and brought to perfection through centuries in socially well-developed states... |
|
|
|
Yes, you are right about the names, but the truth is still by my side. The possession of these otherwise worthless islands allows Russia to get full control over that part of the sea (the Sea of Okhotsk to be precise)...
Sea of Okhostsk - Yes. La Pérouse Strait - No. Big difference. The ocean boundaries between Japan and Russia are undisputed and well defined up to the North of the Shiretoko peninsula. Only the marine region to the East of the Shiretoko peninsula is disputed. So, these islands aren't actually as worthless as they might look at first glance. Also, rhenium (one of the rarest elements in Earth's crust, used for making jet engine parts) was discovered in 1994 at Iturup island... |
|
|
|
Bitcoin is valuable because???
Say why you think Bitcoin has value!!
Bitcoin is valuable (or has value, if such form suits you better) to those people who find the properties inherent to it useful for the achievement of their aims. These are security, deflationary nature, fixed supply and limited number of coins ultimately possible to mine. Probably, there are some other properties that contribute to its subjective valuation by people, but these will suffice. Once you get the hang how things actually work with respect to valuation, everything will become clear and easily comprehensible... |
|
|
|
Again abstract statements that pretend like bitcoin is in the same league as dollars and gold.
Gold is valuable because it is pretty and nice to look at. Thats why people want it.
Dollars are valuable because government forces people to accept them for payment of goods/debts.
First of all, what you are talking about here ("pretty and nice to look at") is correctly called subjective value, because it exists only in the heads of humans, not by itself. And why do you think that all people universally find gold pretty and nice to look at? Secondly, Zimbabwean dollars are also a legal tender and can be used for payment of goods/debts. But no one wants to deal in with them. Why? Because their subjective value is next to nothing, and people try to get rid of them as soon as possible... |
|
|
|
Again abstract statements that pretend like bitcoin is in the same league as dollars and gold.
These are not abstract statements, the economic theory behind them has its origins as early as the Middle Ages. Since the 19th century it has been thoroughly developed and is now accepted by most economists as the only one coherently explaining the real life economic phenomena related to valuation... Do you really think that you are the only one who tried to question its findings or the cleverest among them? |
|
|
|
Did you even read the thread? I have explained to you already why dollars are valuable. Fact is: you cant say why bitcoin is valuable because a bitcoin you transferred to me HAS!!! no value.
Water has value. Food has value. Nobody will discuss this. Sometimes it costs more (desert) sometimes less (rainforest). But it has VALUE!
Now Bitcoin? Its NOTHING and you know it! Thats why you are saying: Look at the dollar, it has not value too (which is incorrect).
Its like the fat boy saying: Yes I am fat but other boys are fat too, so its ok.
You say: The dollar has 0 value so it is ok that bitcoin also have 0 value.
Its not ok. And your comparison is false as dollars have value.
Calm down a little. I'm trying to explain you where the mistake you are making actually is. If you don't want to hear what I say you, then it is no use discussing it any further... |
|
|
|
You didnt explain why bitcoin is valuable! I explained to you why people want gold and dollar. You said bitcoin is rare and thus valuable. Well that is a description of its quantity not bitcoins value. If I say a deadly insect is rare do you think its valuable? Of course not.
First of all, you're confusing me with someone else, because I never said that bitcoin is rare and thus would be valuable. Secondly, people would want dollar and gold because dollars and gold have importance to them as means for the achievement of their desired ends. That's what subjective value actually means... |
|
|
|
Something is thing of value. Nothing is thing of no value. (my terms).
Dollars in your bank account. i.e electronic money existing only as records in some obscure database, are nothing and thing of no value according to your logic, right? If so, could you please transfer all these things of no value to my bank account? |
|
|
|
If Bitcoin has no value for you (as you said earlier), it doesn't mean the same for other people. I have already tried to explain you this, but you just said it was irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to you, but you simply can't just as easily dismiss the opinion of all those people who think otherwise. The world doesn't start at you, nor does it end at you...
I am glad that nothing (thing of no value) is rare. If it would be plentiful it might waste space (something). Now at the moment people pay something for nothing because they think tomorrow the nothing will be worth more something. Now some say: I can transfer nothing cheaply. Well incurring something (cost) for sending nothing is a waste not a benefit.Stop talking bullshit really. If you don't value something (thing of no value in your terms), it doesn't mean that everyone is of the same opinion. Is this really so hard to understand? It is the subjective value that ultimately matters here... |
|
|
|
Очевидно, что ни один обменник или банк в здравом уме не будет продавать валюту ниже текущего курса, а покупать выше,
Арбитраж именно в этом и заключается. Речь идёт о покупке и продаже валюты населением у банков и в обменниках, а не об операциях на финансовых рынках. В любом случае с нетерпением жду подробного рассказа, каким именно образом простой гражданин может навариться на "арбитражных операциях", покупая валюту в банке или обменнике... |
|
|
|
you can buy almost everything, do not you? what you are saying is misleading there are no cops in the shops. You do not need violence to emit currencies, you can just be a bank. If there will be, and it will, rich people owning both bitcoins and other assets in no way the value can go to 0. So it is a store of SOME value, given the rareness cyclical hoarding comes, that's a fact and depends all on the portability and safeness of this asset, which are REAL values no other asset can show. It does not matter if a btc is worth 1 dollar or thousand, it's a safe store for a million dollars wealth, that's enough. That's different from tulip mania because tulips are not inherently a safe storage, we can't say the same of all other bubbles. Paradoxically having no backing asset but just an excellence in cryptographic safety makes this bubble a no bubble or the perfect bubble, as you wish. Only security issues definitely matter.
Why exchange something for nothing? I dont care if nothing is rare. Its still nothing. If Bitcoin has no value for you (as you said earlier), it doesn't mean the same for other people. I have already tried to explain you this, but you just said it was irrelevant. It may be irrelevant to you, but you simply can't just as easily dismiss the opinion of all those people who think otherwise. The world doesn't start at you, nor does it end at you... |
|
|
|
Has anyone thought about what binds together all of the various flavors of statism? In other words, what are some of the things that it would fail without?
A big one that has been glossed over once or twice is the way we humans tend to hierarchically organize ourselves. It seems to me that this makes statism of one form or another (including democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship) natural outcomes. Perhaps such organization was a natural evolutionary response to the environment that early man found himself in, but is it still necessary, or even advantageous today (other than for the purpose of propagating the various forms of statism we are still subjected to today)?
It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us... |
|
|
|
While it may look appealing, what you say here is actually nothing more than pure blah-blah-blah... "Show me the code"
I don't believe neither state nor in the state. It is evil by its nature and its origins. But between the two evils I involuntarily choose state, the other being back to caves and all that shit...
Well, at least you agree with us on the nature of the state. Since the state is evil should not alternatives at least be explored? Are we truly stuck with evil? Or does the evil wish us to believe that we are stuck with it? As I see it, the feasible alternative is very simple and clear, but it is not what you, anarchists and those sympathizing you, would probably love to hear. Nowadays, it is much easier and less troublesome to emigrate than it was even 50 years ago. The more national economics will be intertwined in the future as it is happening today, the more transparent national borders will become. So my point consists in making states peacefully compete for their human resources by means of providing better conditions of life for their population... In fact, this process is already unfolding right now |
|
|
|
So what's incorrect about my point exactly? It has been pretty well known (or rather obvious) since the end of the war that Russia grabbed these small islands in order to establish their control over the strait. In fact, Stalin at first was planning to occupy the whole island of Hokkaido
Please clarify what I got wrong...
See this:  You said who ever controls Iturup and Kunashir will gain the control of also controls the La Pérouse Strait. That is wrong. La Pérouse Strait is far away (North-west of the disputed area). Yes, you are right about the names, but the truth is still by my side. The possession of these otherwise worthless islands allows Russia to get full control over that part of the sea (the Sea of Okhotsk to be precise)... |
|
|
|
These are extreme cases. I don't know what is beyond state, I can only give you a scale where at one end we have the caves and at the other the state. Anything in between is just a transition from one to the other. I thought it was pretty evident...
And here I am trying to tell you the whole time, that MAYBE it's not that conveniently simple and evident. Unless you provide some substantial evidence, something which is beyond that wanton and non-obliging maybe, I have to stick to the facts which stand as I have described them in my post you answered... |
|
|
|
Where are you living really? I don't even need to appeal to actual history and times long gone, though the most evident proves are there (1649 in England, 1789 in France, 1917 in Russia and again in 1991). Just look around yourself, look at Egypt where the absolute power was overthrown in a matter of few months...
I claim no allegiance to any nation-state  It was no more than sarcasm... Well what you are talking about are revolutions, you know the forceful removal of the current entities in power and their replacement with new ones. With new rhetoric. And sometimes even the mechanics of how you're being ruled over. This has never changed the fundamental underlying fact that there is a centralized structure, with monopoly on legal initiation of force and you have to pay taxes to it or face punishment. The way to remove THAT, seems to be by gradual evolution. Sort of how collectivism and totalitarian tendencies slowly creep into governments bit by bit, just the other way round  But that requires cultural change, because I posit that government is a consequence of the collective cultural operating system. And let me tell you, we probably won't get much change there if we remain convinced of ideas like "human nature is fixed and can't be changed". Unless people actually choose to be more free as their goal, all of this talk doesn't make any sort of difference. Oh, now you seem to be backing off... Whatever, but this does prove that you were outright wrong about "people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure". In fact, Gaddafi ended very badly... |
|
|
|
You know, choosing between the evils of the state and "going back to the caves" - are you aware this is your imagination presenting the situation as a false dichotomy? Truth is, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else, no matter how much they might claim they do...we DO NOT know what exactly would happen in the absence of government. Believing it's going to be "back to the caves" says much more about your mind, than about reality or "human nature" or any such thing. But I think we have established quite firmly, that you do believe to know these things, so I don't expect you to concede this point Please stop making value judgments about anyone here These are extreme cases. I don't know what is beyond state, I can only give you a scale where at one end we have the caves and at the other the state. Anything in between is just a transition from one to the other. I thought it was pretty evident... |
|
|
|
Agree with Mike that expecting people who have been given (close to) absolute power with (little to) no control mechanisms or personal responsibility for damage & failure...expecting people in that position to voluntary constrain themselves and become "benevolent protectors" seems very naive to me. And they say that anarchists are a bunch of idealists. How about believing in the Utopia of creating a government, populated with benevolent protectors, which not only try but also achieve the greatest good for the greatest number..? Wow, some crazy shit, right there!
Where are you living really? I don't even need to appeal to actual history and times long gone, though the most evident proofs are there (1649 in England, 1789 in France, 1917 in Russia and again in 1991). Just look around yourself, look at Egypt where the absolute power was overthrown in a matter of few months... |
|
|
|
Your second point lacks insight; the state can only exist if the general population is blind enough to believe in it. Never before in history has information been so readily and easily available, with people having so much more free time; likewise, the number of liberty-minded people is ever increasing and libertarianism is gaining a lot of traction. The state can only exist so long as it is deemed necessary; as many of man's inventions have become discarded, so will the perceived need for ulterior governance. Simply because rape has occurred all throughout history doesn't mean it should be an accepted norm.
While it may look appealing, what you say here is actually nothing more than pure blah-blah-blah... "Show me the code" I don't believe neither state nor in the state. It is evil by its nature and its origins. But between the two evils I involuntarily choose state, the other being back to caves and all that shit... |
|
|
|
I never said that state would not be engaging in compulsion and coercion. These "features" are inherent to it, that's what makes such an institution a state. My point, actually, boils down to two things which I expand on in detail below
Firstly, state is just a somewhat embellished form of exploitation and expropriation that one small group of people promotes towards the rest of population. Why that group of people would ultimately have to restrain themselves from looting the population, I had explained in my posts before
Secondly, states evolved naturally from the initial condition very close to what you call here anarchy. Because of the universal character of this phenomenon throughout the world, I find it very dubious that anything like anarchy has even a remote chance of materialization or persistence in reality
Your first point is ludicrous: you're asking an entity with the power of God to constrain themselves. Chances are, as they always have, they will say, "No, now pay your taxes and stop complaining." History has shown it multiple times that this power is not as almighty as it pretends to be. You either don't history to such a degree that go down to making such dumb assumptions, or think I don't know history to such an extent that would take what you say here seriously... Though it can very well be that you're just intentionally trying to obfuscate and confuse matters as you did before... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
