Thanks for playing
an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange, characterized by the freedom of capitalists to operate or manage their property for profit in competitive conditions. Your definition doesn't refute my description. sounds like you're confusing capitalism with corporatism.
Corporations aren't compatible with your definition of capitalism? More like he hates the idea of leaders, employers, landlords, and tenants.
But even the bitcoin project is a hierarchy.
Satoshi is our benevolent dictator. Gavin is the lead developer. I am a global moderator. Theymos is an administrator.
FatherMcGruder have a really bad case of hating neutral things. This forum does indeed have a hierarchy. The users did not choose the moderators and both the moderators and operators can unilaterally make decisions that can affect the users. As long as it remains open source, or at least free of copyright restrictions, development of Bitcoin software is free of hierarchy. Lead developers will have no power to prevent other programmers from doing whatever they want with it. |
|
|
|
Why do they fight against the establishment of any sort of government then? You mean there are anarchist factions fighting Ethiopian invaders, al-Shabab, the UIC, etc? I think not. I would think that like most people, Somalis mostly settle for the authorities that offer the best comfort and survival rate. And the Xeer is a truly private law enforcement system, nothing wrong with that. Perhaps, but it's not anarchy. I mean, the Saudi family privately owns and runs Saudi Arabia. Would you call that anarchy? Honestly I'm not interested in talking with you FatherMcGruder, neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. In my opinion your argument doesn't make any sense and seems oppressive, and vice versa. I was a capitalist once, too, you know... |
|
|
|
Hey, Father; would you mind attempting to define "capitalism" in your own words? It's really hard to debate with someone speaking another language. There isn't really an official definition of capitalism, but it is essentially a system of hierarchy. It allows for the existence of employers, landlords, and usurers who rule over employees, tenants, and borrowers. |
|
|
|
|
Anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-socialism are crumby terms. There's really just capitalism and anarchism, with various subcategories for anarchism. Anarchists desire either the peaceful obsolescence or violent destruction of capitalism and government. They also believe that the two are inseparable. Anarchist positions range from mutualism, who's subscribers believe in markets, money, and some property rights, to communism who's subscribers do not believe in money, markets, or property rights.
Capitalists need a state of some kind in order to separate workers from the products of their labor so as to become landlords, employers, and usurers. Capitalists assume a range of positions with one extreme including anarcho-capitalism. These capitalists wish to abolish government, but fail to realize the inseparability of government and capitalism. In the absence of governments as we commonly understand them, people would have to create very small ones so as to engage in capitalism. For example, if someone wanted to take the product of the labor of some farmers, he would need the ability to kick them out if they don't obey. As such, he would have to establish a monopoly of force over the territory containing the farm. He can provide the force himself or get it from a larger government.
|
|
|
|
|
In Mogadishu, people submit to competing warlords' governments in turns. On the roads, they submit to the highwaymen. In the countryside they submit to the kritarchy of Xeer. Somalis do not enjoy anarchy.
|
|
|
|
HOW DID THIS GUY NOT MAKE THE LIST IM OUTRAGED  I love the internet. |
|
|
|
None of which are practically accessible at this time. But you forgot Somalia. I'm not being ethnocentric and sarcastic--people in Somalia are just human beings trying to solve human problems. I legitimately think anarchists should consider moving there and trying to do the same. "Anti-government" capitalists only have their lack of gumption to blame. |
|
|
|
In anarcho-capitalism, the moderates don't have to give up anything; they voluntarily hire a protection agency. Protection? Voluntary? Something about an offer... It is interesting to note that in an anarcho-capitalist society you could construct an anarcho-socialist community, but not the other way around.
This is absolutely untrue. Capitalists do not respect one's right to own the product of his labor and they believe that they can own land. They will destroy the anarchists to protect their profits. This protocol has precedent before and during the Spanish Civil War. |
|
|
|
I choose no government, where is the box for no government?  Antarctica, the abyssal plains, Luna, Mars... |
|
|
|
The sole authorized provider of law and law enforcement services. Why not allow private entities to compete for those services as well? Aren't there already plenty of governments to choose from? |
|
|
|
|
Newcomers could always just "undervalue" the early adopters' bitcoins, no?
|
|
|
|
So basically you want to ban lending but not stricly ownership. Now that you have stated what you think is moral, I would like to understand why (and please, for the sake of understanding, keep the clear and understandable language going on). No, I want the majority of folks to not tolerate usury. Usurers might still exist, but they'd have trouble finding borrowers. It is immoral for the same reason that theft is immoral. Others have rightfully complained about this tangent. Let's consolidate and continue at the "Do you like profit?" thread that Kiba started. |
|
|
|
Very nice. Much better than I expected. I recommend either not rounding dollar amounts or rounding up. I pledged 8.99USD for a DVD, but the site says 8.00$. Also, use USD instead of a dollar sign. Perhaps you'll allow users to select different currencies? Um... sorry dude, I won't tell my mother my password and I won't tell you either.
Maybe I'll create a dummy account and use that login to check it out.
You use the same password for everything? |
|
|
|
Hmm... a system of Judges, but to be fair it would have to have an equal amount of Land Owners and Potato Growers. Something tells me there will be a lot of unresolved cases.
Just because the Land Owner put the "Fruits" of his labors in owning Land instead of Growing Potatoes. Who should Lord over him and tell him how to use and what to do with his land.
You have turn the land owner into the Potato Grower, Whoever gets to tell the Potato Grower what to do with his potatoes should be able to tell the Land Owner what to do with his Land. If no one gets to tell the Potato Grower what to do with his Potatoes, then no one should tell the Land Owner how to use his land. I think you misunderstood. Such disputes would come as a result of workers trying to use the same resource. Only a minority of people would ever respect a land claim wherein the claimant doesn't work the land himself. Nor should it, the Land owner if he chooses to not use it has as much right as the Potato Grower that chooses to throw the Potatoes away. They both Labored for their work, they both received something for their work, Who should tell them to what to do with what they earned. Well, a land owner doesn't really earn anything by owning land. He directs his workers to earn it for him. And I think hungry people have every right to take food from someone who intends to let it rot. It seems like you are against surplus. Am I committing a crime when I only eat half of my sandwich. Or should I throw it to the ground and let others (ants, etc...) eat it? I am not against surplus. I am against the abuse of surplus. Overeating, while others starve, is wrong because in doing so, you make food scarcer and thus more difficult to obtain. I don't think anyone would ever get in trouble for procuring too large of a sandwich. Whoever does find himself with excess sandwich should not mindlessly waste it by interring it in a landfill. If he can't fine anyone who wants a half eaten sandwich, perhaps someone might need it for compost to grow more food, or to feed pigs. While I agree there is to much surplus that leads to waste, it is their surplus. A law that says only make what you need will have drastic consequences on a multitude of people. Especially since needs change day to day. And who gets to determine needs? Me or the Government? Putting someone in charge will not solve the problem of waste. He will pleasantly wallow in as much as he can while his subjects endure scarcity. As a better alternative, every individual should take it upon himself to not tolerate waste. Oh, BTW: In the U.S. what the Land Owner does with the Land determines the tax rate. If the Land Owner chooses to turn it into farm land, he is rewarded with the lowest tax rate. If he just wants to look at it, he pays the highest rate. *Exception: Churches don't pay tax on their land, but they still must buy it. I know, but they give those breaks to the land owners and not to the people who actually work the land. Of course, I don't expect the state to do so. Even if they did, it would be to pacify the workers so as to prevent mutiny. |
|
|
|
Removing government altogether is likely to just lead to someone establishing a new one, with force perhaps. This part is the hardest, convincing most people that they're better off without government, even small ones of their own creation. The more invested in capitalism they are, intellectually and materially, the harder it is. I gained knowledge, insight, and enlightenment. Well, good, but that stuff is free. You can find it while pooping, after all. However, you are nothing more than just a crazy fool. I don't recall ever calling anyone in these discussions names. I refrain because I want my readers to take me seriously. Don't you want the same? This isn't a zero sum game pal. and if it was there would be no point playing. Abstractly, we everything about us is a zero sum game. We each don't exist, exist, and then cease existing. No one gets out alive. But since we're all in this together, why not seek cooperative relationships where everyone gains equally according to the work they do? Sorry, I was working under the assumptions of a free market. If the state is involved all bets are off. Ah, but the gallery owner is also the state! Otherwise, she couldn't possibly take the product of the painter's labor without giving something back of equal value. |
|
|
|
|
What about making any interest rate on bitcoins a function of network difficulty. It may not be a perfect indicator of bitcoin value, but it seems better than trying to gauge it against something relatively unrelated, like gold or USD.
|
|
|
|
Managing workers requires time and effort. I am indirectly working the land. If the workers want management, they will democratically choose a manager and give him a share of the harvest equal to the work he contributes relative to everyone else. I think I see a point at which compromise can be attained.
Correct me if I am wrong:
A "rich guy" owns 200,000 acres of land, and a "poor guy" owns nothing, but sneaks onto the rich guys land and grows potatoes. You say the potatoes belong to the poor guy because he "labored" for them. If the rich guy "lords" over the poor guy he is wrong. I think you might have a point here somewhere but an acceptable compromise must be attained. The "rich guy" labored to acquire land, instead of "potatoes", so he should also bare the "fruits" of his labor and not let the "poor guy" steal it from him. Just like the rich guy shouldn't steal the "poor guys" potatoes.
How can someone compromise this? Well the poor guy should give "something" to the rich guy where both can benefit from each of their "laboring". Technically this is "squatting".
Which in the United States is taken into account:
In time, squatters can actually earn ownership of the dwelling. There's a legal precedent in most of the United States called adverse possession. This doctrine says that if a squatter lives "openly, continuously and hostilely" in a home for a prescribed number of years, he or she can become the owner. This applies to property that's vacant and where property taxes aren't being paid. The three criteria that must be met are making no attempts to hide the inhabitation (open), living in the dwelling continuously and without permission (hostile). If the squatter pays property taxes on the home, when the time limit is reached, he or she is considered the owner.
So if the "Rich Guy", never notices or doesn't do anything, the "poor guy" can become the owner. This will let land the "isn't really being used to be re-proportioned."
But if the "Rich Guy" takes notice because he is in some fashion "using it". There must be a solution. The sympathetic solution, would be to let the "poor guy" continue but pay the rich guy a portion of proceeds for his labors. A win/win solution.
But if the "Rich Guy" wants to stop the "poor guy" and make him leave. You say he shouldn't be able to do it. But that will allow the poor guy to become the rich guy and the rich guy to become the poor guy. All because one put his labors into potatoes instead of land.
I say the rich guy should be able to make the poor guy leave BUT the rich guy shouldn't get the potatoes or any profit from them. That seems fair.
Please consider this as pointed out below by a poster: If there is not "Land Ownership" being paid for by the fruits of ones labors, there will be great fighting over use of the land. All the Potato growers will fight for the best place to grow potatoes, mine, drill, etc...
If you own to much land to properly oversee then "Squatters" will occur and ownership transferred. The U.S. and Australia have law sympathetic to squatters, because of extreme land grabs where people claimed hundreds of thousands of acres for themselves. So our two countries have as a foundation and rarely used principle of "Use it or loose it". People still do this and cases come up almost every year, but as soon as you are declared the new owner, you must pay the taxes. Death and Taxes, you know. Of course disputes will occur, but the person with the greatest might shouldn't unilaterally devise the solution. If the disputing parties cannot reach a solution without one using power over the other, perhaps they’ll take the issue to some kind of court in which individuals of equal relation to both parties investigate and come up with a solution. Of course the court will have no power except to publish its findings. This way, others will have information by which they can voluntarily modify their behavior towards the disputing parties so as to affect justice. If the stronger claimant doesn’t follow the court’s findings, he’ll have a lot of people to answer too. Now compare to the capitalist system of the USA that you depicted. It clearly benefits those with the power to regularly patrol their property claims and pay taxes. It pays no regard to how the claimants use the property, if at all. I hate the terms Rich and Poor. Material amount has little significance if the individual sufficiently sustains themselves.
I agree with you, but one must use a means of communicating that others can easily quantify. Personally, I think Mother Terresa was one of the "Richest" people on earth. And she had the audacity recognized the existence of poor and unfortunate people, unlike Atlas apparently. You have not answered. Stop hiding behind rethoric and answer clearly.
In the example above, the original, how can I know if someone is just obtaining surplus in a moral way (according to you) or someone is obtaining a surplus inomorally (according to you)?
Okay, here's the simple English version: When someone sells you something, you pay for it and you own it. When someone rents something to you, you pay for it but the he keeps owning it while you get nothing. Renting is bad because the person you rent from gains at your expense. |
|
|
|
The 2 parties came to a volantary arrangement in both cases. The artist assumed the gallery would try to profit from his work going into the arrangement. He took his profits and was happy. But not as happy as he deserves. later he finds out that the profit the gallery made was quite large. Yes, he realizes that he has been robbed. in the future the artist knows that the market values his work much higher than he does and can increase his prices to the gallery owner or take his work to another gallery. He may be wiser, but he cannot take back what the gallery owner because he would face punishment from the state for doing so. How can he petition any gallery owner for a fairer deal if they will simply reject him for a more obedient painter? wait, why am I arguing about property rights with a communist....  If you take the time to read more of my posts, you will realize that I am not a communist. in fact why are you even here. this place is the epitomy of free market capitalism  Because I think bitcoin might help to eliminate the state and therefore capitalism. It's funny that you should refer to the "epitomy[sic] of free market capitalism" on the one hundredth anniversary of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire. There is no profit to be had arguing with a commie.  There is no profit to any intellectual debate. Why were you one of the first to engage me in it? |
|
|
|
Through whatever means I have to enforce my right to my property. More accurately, you employ coercion by whatever means you find most useful, to take from someone that which he worked to produce. They can always buy their own land. With what capital, that which they get at the pleasure of the strongmen? How coercive! Because it's my land... If you don't work the land, it's not really yours. If you do, it's only yours to the extent that you work it relative to others. ...and other workers will probably take their place. You mean that you expect workers to take their place under coercive pressures. |
|
|
|
I'll agree that bitcoin isn't perfect. One problem I could see with the changing value of the currency: You buy a house for 1000btc You make 10btc a month. 2 years later.. You still owe 850btc on the house You make 9btc a month because the value has risen relative to the USD. You can still afford to make your payments but if it continues to rise you're going to be in trouble. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't this a big part of what happened to farmers in the dustbowl? I don't mean they hand loans in BTC obviously but their value of the money went up and food was easier to buy but they still owed the same in loans. I think the answer is to not accept loans of bitcoins with interest. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
