So the point of the article, which you missed, is that a government can be more harmful than no government.
I understand well what the paper says. Your post has essentially reduced the paper into a banality, which it is. And one that fails to provide a compelling case for Anarcho-Capitalism, which is what is being discussed in the thread. |
|
|
|
Indeed, that is why anarchy would work so well for poorer people. Most of the destitute people in the village are creative, resourceful, hard-working people. But in a statist society they compete against corporations who can retain profits while externalising many risks (that's what a state-protected corporation is, in essence).
Large companies can become (have become) virtually indistinguishable from states. They represent centers of capital and, by extension, power. In the absence of state coercion, the people in the village would have much more opportunity to benefit from self-organization and bottom-up growth, and the village would flourish.
Perhaps. Or perhaps a large corporation would impose its own forms for coercion. State vs private: they look the same from the end of a barrel. You don't need a large organization to perform agriculture, services, or most kinds of manufacturing. Sure, a factory is capital-intensive, but that doesn't mean it needs a corporation.
I agree. Cooperatives run via democratic principles can and have achieved success. However, don't expect concentrated power to let this go unchecked. Democracy is the most powerful threat to centralized power that we know of. Instead, it can be the coming-together of a number of individuals or smaller autonomous organizations, one of whom does one subtask: owns and leases the building, owns and leases various pieces of machinery, supplies and drives a truck, etc.
And what happens when, say, the truck owners decide they want something and decide to stop running their trucks? Or any other economically important property? Only the very largest of projects (designing and building a new kind of airliner, for example), need more than this, and those industries will of course only exist in heavily-populated areas with high levels of education etc.
... they will only exist in the presence of concentrated capital. In early US history, this need was recognized. This was the role of the corporation. One difference between those corporations and modern corporations is that as soon as its charter was satisfied (bridge built or river dammed) the corporation would be dissolved. Now, corporations have all the rights of people (and more, actually) and can live forever. The state can take those rights away. In the absence of a democratically appointed authority, a corporation will never impose checks on itself. It becomes a total tyranny, absolutely devoid of any accountability besides the threat of popular revolt, to be kept in check by force. |
|
|
|
I'm personnaly convinced that Satoshi wrote his code after the "Too big to fail" thing.
You could always ask him. Shooting someone in the face and denying them a means to earn food lead to the same predicable outcome: death. If they only way to earn food is by working in a sweatshop, I think one could demonstrate that the situation is coercive. In my estimation (and I would wager - the estimation of most), this is criminal. I was going to stay out of this thread, but statements like this really have to be answered. Let's conduct a thought experiment. There exists an impoverished, third-world village where most of the inhabitants don't get enough to eat. If nobody from the outside does anything, conditions in the village will likely remain the same for generations. A businessman comes along and builds a factory on previously-unused land and offers jobs to those who wish to work there. Everything about the working conditions and wages is disclosed beforehand. Each villager has the option of continuing to scrounge/trade for food in the same way they have for generations or work at the factory. Some choose to work at the factory and decide that it is better than the old way of surviving, even though the hours are long and the conditions less favorable than in the industrialized countries. How is this coercive or criminal? Do you realize that these are exactly the same arguments of any CEO of any multi-national? I am sure that they believe the arguments, but the thought experiment collapses immediately upon inspection of its presuppositions. It may prove instructive to ask why the village is destitute. Or why cities are crowded with miserably poor and desperate people - people who, conveniently for the businessman, make really good employees because they don't have any choices (what was that about free trade?). Typically, the whys aren't accidents. They are deliberately planned and executed acts of centralized power and capital - acts with easily predictable (indeed, predicted) outcomes. The idea that your hypothetical company just happens to come in and help the poor masses by offering them sweat shops and fascist dictatorships (you neglected to mention that corresponding aspect) is morally offensive to many, especially when considering all the requisite conditions which are systematically designed and implemented. |
|
|
|
I don't believe personal ridicule is ever an appropriate response.
Of course it can be. This is like expecting a person to not laugh at a good joke. You preach about human solidarity and the worker class uniting to improve their society, yet seek every chance you can find to scorn members of this forum.
I contest that I "seek every chance" to scorn. It seems that I am being held to a higher standard that some others. This I welcome. Hey Gene, maybe read the article before you comment.
+1 I read the pdf. It reports some marginal improvements in some metrics. I remain skeptical that this is in any way meaningful or illustrative of a successful case of Anarcho-Capitalism. If people here are interested in furthering Anarcho-Capitalism, it would seem obvious to not present Somalia as a case study. Rather, I would discuss why Anarcho-Capitalism has failed to bring about any real improvements to say... make life bearable for Somalis. That would be far more constructive. The trouble, I suspect, is that the philosophy is fundamentally flawed beyond hope. |
|
|
|
You need to drop all such arguments.
I am not going to discard my intuition and experience. It has helped me avoid mistakes and solve problems. Just because I cannot show definitely why intuition and experience (induction) works does not disqualify it as a useful method. I prefer deductive methods, but induction and deduction may complement each other. You may disagree on my conclusions or reject my experience as invalid, and that is fine. The contract is invalid. You must sign it to implies that you understand "society's rule".
The real situation is clear. Do as we say, or we use violence or throw you in jail. That is reality.
It may be. However, authority must always justify itself to the satisfaction of those it claims to represent. In a true democracy, this condition is satisfied, by definition. This is not property right people understood in Libertarian parlance. It is understood that people, no matter how rich they are, cannot take your property away, unless you specifically sold it to said person.
It is an academic exercise then. In reality, property owners routinely conspire to allocate resources and capital to their own ends at the expense of others. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. It is my opinion that slavery required coercion. A threat of violence. If there is no such threat but nature, than it is not slavery.
By that logic, I can commit all sorts of atrocities and blame them on "nature" or "acts of God." The problem with this logic is that one can predict a likely outcome of such situations; this is sufficient to show intent in a court of law. Shooting someone in the face and denying them a means to earn food lead to the same predicable outcome: death. If they only way to earn food is by working in a sweatshop, I think one could demonstrate that the situation is coercive. In my estimation (and I would wager - the estimation of most), this is criminal. Also, I noticed you skipped over my example about property rights over air and water. What is you stance on that? |
|
|
|
The community here are very interested in making sure bitcoin succeed. There's had been historically genuine disagreement in the past, such as the wikileak debate, which was pretty heated. So this isn't an echo chamber, at least, not always.
However, don't think that people will necessary agree with your arguments just because they're open to criticism and suggestion on how to strengthen bitcoin.
Please don't get me wrong. I work in an environment of constant argument and disagreement. I rather enjoy it, actually. What I mind are facile responses and lack of openness. |
|
|
|
Selfish motives -> injustice is unjustified. You need to reason why selfish motives equal injustice.
Any such relation is difficult, perhaps impossible, to show. It is my conjecture, based on experience and intuition. Human nature/interactions are far too complex to try to nail down the validity of any such statements. I will say that I am not alone in suspecting that the relation holds in most meaningful cases. Where is this social contract and how do I sign it?
I think you know you are being obtuse, but I'll play along. The contract depends on who lives in the society. You "sign" it by living in the society. If the rich landowner purchase land from him, than it's fine. If the landowner took it by force, that's a violation of property right.
Property rights are defined by those who own lots of property. Eminent domain is sometimes used by private interests to re-appropriate land. However, we can go on to consider specific cases where the idea of ownership of resources falls down. If I say that I own something that you need to survive (water, air, etc.) then you may agree that there is a severe limitations regarding the concept of arbitrary private property. Working for food does not equal automatic slavery.
I see no distinction between being forced to live in a sweat shop to feed your family and slavery. I do see a difference between that situation and a factory that is run cooperatively by employees. |
|
|
|
It is polite to take the most charitable explanation and strongest arguments of a position and work from there. Otherwise, you end up in epistemic trouble.
Agreed. However, when someone openly asserts this sort of mindset, they relinquish the expectation of a charitable response. The only appropriate response to such a ridiculous position (ridiculous in the framework of discourse) is ridicule. |
|
|
|
All socialists that I have seen on this forum are driven out by almost relentless argumentation, alone. They left on their own.
But you, on the other hand, seem to piss off people more readily than any socialist crank that come here. I don't know what you did, actually. So, I hold no personal grudges against you.
Thank you... I think. I suppose I just want to see bitcoin succeed. That is never going to happen with a forum full of people that think that bitcoin is able to do things that it is demonstrably incapable of doing. I can understand that people don't like being told that they are being unrealistic, but scrutiny is the price of improvement. |
|
|
|
I have witnessed a new low. People discussing Somalia as a compelling case for of Anarcho-Capitalism! I would laugh if it weren't so disgusting. For what it's worth, I've met Somalis and military people that served there. The consensus is solid. Somalia is a place where people are forced to live in a subhuman state and ally with some violent local gang to survive. I always like to read stuff that supports my view.
Why am I not surprised? |
|
|
|
Gene, after reading some of your previous posts I can see where you are coming from. If I understand your view correctly you are concerned that government and libertarian arguments are used in favour of rich entrenched interests and do not end up improving the lives of everyone. I can totally respect that view.
That is a fair assessment. I think a good case can be made that historically what are now called "libertarian" views have been co-opted by powerful interests. Is it really that surprising that fundamentally selfish motives can be leveraged to construct large scale injustice? However if we ever did have your kind of world, and there were plans to improve life in some way and I chose not to participate. Would someone need to force me to or could I go my merry way in peace?
I don't think anyone should (or even can) be forced to partake in any society against his or her will. Hermits have always existed. However, if a person wishes to enter society (a relationship of some sort with at least another person) then compromises must necessarily be made. A democratic community should decide (yes - likely though difficult deliberation) what that standards and social contracts are based on their values and goals. Again, a person may be cast out of society for failing to meet some social obligation, or leave voluntarily. This seems elementary to me. Why do want it to be "at the expense of others" ? Free trade is volontary : it's a win-win game.
You assume it is voluntary. Consider a farmer forced off his land and into a city by a powerful landowner. He can choose to work in a factory in basic slavery. Or he can choose to starve. Some would consider that "voluntary" free trade. This is not a hypothetical example, by the way. |
|
|
|
Those of you talking about buying gift/visa cards are describing bitcoin's use as a scrip, similar to casino chips. I need to exchange the chips (bitcoins) for something that is universally recognized. Currently, we only have a very limited number of places where this exchange can happen (like the cashier's window at a casino). Your examples essentially make my point that bitcoin currently fails to satisfy the requirements for money, as enumerated by the OP. As for buying things on Amazon (after exchanging my bitcoins for a form of payment actually recognized by Amazon), I now need an account with Amazon (likely along with a verified credit card), in addition to a computer with internet access. Not only that, I must also wait for delivery. How exactly is this superior to just using real money? I've saved the best for last: You know not whom you are offending. You are very nearly the first forum member to enter into my killfile.
[...]
I reccommed that you either hush up and wait in the background until you feel more comfortable with the system, and more civil, or GTFO
This post really helped me shake my hangover this morning. Nothing quite like a good laugh to get the blood flowing. As for the "GTFO" attitude, that is an excellent way to build an echo chamber. |
|
|
|
Your answer completely misses the point. You also neglected to address my assertion that any physical manifestation of BTC would just bring back problems that we currently deal with: central authority and forgery.
This has been discussed in depth in many threads. Go read, lurk a bit, educate yourself before expecting people to "address your assertions". Not gonna lose any more time with you kthxbye You presume far too much, sir. Unfortunately, your posts in this thread have been absolutely free of content. I know this is out of character for you, so please accept my criticism in the best possible way. The proposed solutions have failed to offer the flexibility of hard currency (durability, recognition and portability, in the OP's parlance). Unfortunately, this is what most people require of "money" and the inability of bitcoin to match this standard remains a serious problem. |
|
|
|
Try explaining this distinction to a local merchant.
Easy. It will be written on it. A bank note usually clearly states what it is. I have a $10 bill in front of me. It says: You challenged me to explain to a local marchant what a bitcoin bank note would be. I answered you. The fact that dollars are defined differently is an other matter. On a bitcoin bank note we would write : "This note can be redeemed against [XX] bitcoins in [some place]". Your answer completely misses the point. You also neglected to address my assertion that any physical manifestation of BTC would just bring back problems that we currently deal with: central authority and forgery. Perhaps there is a language barrier, but my point is that the merchant would likely not care to hear your argument. He or she wants to be paid in an accepted currency. One which doesn't require a computer with a network connection and all the associated nerdery for a simple cash transaction (I'm a nerd, so don't take offense). To him or her, your distinction about currencies or methods of payment or whatever else is less than meaningless. You must understand my point. So let's get real about what money is to most people. Does bitcoin qualify yet? Not even close. At least not by the criteria you posted. |
|
|
|
Try explaining this distinction to a local merchant.
Easy. It will be written on it. A bank note usually clearly states what it is. I have a $10 bill in front of me. It says: Ten Dollars
In a nice old-western typeface. It also states: This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private
I failed to locate the text which states This bank note is not a currency. It's a method of payment.
Perhaps the euro notes are different? An old Swiss Frank here states: Zehn Franken
Diesch Francs
They wanted to make a point in two languages that this note IS 10 Swiss Franks. Those guys are very well-educated, indeed. |
|
|
|
And it's not difficult at all to imagine physical, off line representations of bitcoins that would work pretty much like bank notes did during gold standard. If really demanded, that will be done.
How would you preserve the unique qualities of bitcoin? If it exists physically, it can be forged. Or it would depend on some central authority. Probably both. |
|
|
|
A bank note is not a currency. It's a method of payment.
Try explaining this distinction to a local merchant. This is the sort of pedantry which will hinder the progress of bitcoin. |
|
|
|
But the thing is that the ability to be transfered instantanously in very long distance with almost no cost is just about as good. You can't do that with physical bank notes.
True. But "with almost no cost" is not on the list of criteria you posted above. The bank notes have equivalent electronic recognition as pertains to the corresponding requirement. There are things you can do with bitcoins, that you can't with bank notes, and reciprocally. Both currencies are "portable", but in different spaces : physical space for bank notes, cyberspace for bitcoins.
No physical manifestation (much less one which is recognized as legitimate) of bitcoin exists. That severely limits its portability as it pertains to practical use for most people. I can carry USD in my wallet (which said hillbilly would be happy to accept) and have them represented as numbers on a computer screen (which my bank would be happy to transfer). Now you can deny cyberspace has as big an economic importance than physical space if you want. I don't.
I suppose it depends by what you define as important. Some would consider buying food and other goods to be important. Others would consider the ability to transfer capital to be important. No matter, by the criteria you listed above, bitcoin still has some way to go. Not saying that it can't happen. Just saying that it is a bit too early to start cheer leading about how wonderful and ready bitcoin is to serve as a currency in any meaningful way. |
|
|
|
Wow gene, I really missed you!
You successfully demonstrated that "bank notes" != "bitcoin", I'm impressed.
De même. However, my point stands. I think it is important to realistically evaluate the limitations of bitcoin rather than going all heads over heels about how bitcoin "fullfills all of" the characteristics of money. Although my point is elementary, I was surprised to see that it not obvious to some. Also, nobody has contested my assertion that bitcoin is by no means "durable." |
|
|
|
|
What I see here are several people who imagine themselves as lords over their own private domains who can exist completely independently of others. What utter nonsense. The limiting case of these kinds of hallucinations is a situation where everyone is in a race to the bottom to abandon the very qualities that make them human. It doesn't take much thinking to anticipate what a world based on values of absolute greed and selfishness would be. As a matter of fact, we can see what such a world would look like. Check out Somalia. Tell us how nice it would be to raise a family there.
Thankfully, normal humans understand that we require cooperative efforts to survive and improve our condition. Sure, democracy isn't perfect. It just happens to be far better than anything else we know of. Compromises are obviously required. The question we should be asking is: do we wish to make our lives better individually at the expense of others, or do we try to take the concepts of solidarity and basic human decency seriously? What kind of world do we wish to live in? To see our children live in?
You may all go back to your regularly scheduled Ayn Rand readings. Good day.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
