Still fuming in here?
Allow me to put it to you that the original question is nonsensical.
Horrible simplifications follow:
Government arises largely from the fact resources and space are limited. People have to share some things, at least the air they breathe, the water they drink and the land they tread. Conflicts of interest are inevitable and some process must exist to resolve them. At its most basic, that process is violence, but generally other solutions evolve.
All known solutions are flawed. Ideally, we wouldn't have conflicts, but we do, and must therefore deal with them. That understanding is deeply ingrained into us all. Most of us in the West tend to believe Democracy is better than all other forms of government we've tried, but few consider it perfect. Even so, for most people, the less they feel their lives are interefered with, the better.
Bitcoin isn't an attempt to make a better solution to the problem of government. It is an attempt to do away with the conflict of interest problem in a limited portion of our lives. The idea is not to need government to moderate Bitcoin, since the protocol is open, consensus-based, forkable and non-coercive.
It makes no sense to ask if a system is Democratic when that system has no actual government.
The term "democratic" doesn't just refer to governments ( as in the governments of Nation States ). See the definition of that word I posted and then look at the definition s of the word "democracy" I posted, particularly the one repeated below. Ideally, we wouldn't have conflicts, but we do, and must therefore deal with them. And I ask, what better way to deal with conflicts than democratically? ( someone should point out to Rude-O that this too is a question and not the stating of a dogmatic belief that takes on a burden to prove anything one way or another. LOL ) See definition #5 from the dictionary: 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. The issue of how such principles are put into practice are foreign to the definition, but if such implementations do not adhere to those principles, despite this or that tyrant insisting that they do, then they can not be truly regarded as democratic. ~~~ edit/ I am not making this stuff up... see also the quote prominently displayed on the http://www.weusecoins.com/ site: "We make money democratic." or from https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Public_relations: "Bitcoin is a chance to revolutionize the financial system, making it fairer and more democratic." or from here: http://www.bitcoin2012.com/"Denis Roio (jaromil), social activist and long time developer of multimedia applications for Linux. He is also been working with communities in developing alternative currencies and activists in order to bring power and democratic determination back to societies." or use google... or better yet: http://duckduckgo.com/?q=bitcoin+democraticto see many more examples for yourself.  |
|
|
|
Please, everyone, don't play into Portnoy's rhetorical trick. Though I won't be reading his response, he still has a burden of proof he has not satisfied: proving his claim that "Bitcoin is democratic". So do not allow him to change the topic to "what system is better than democracy".
Also: I can't read what blatherblatherblather is saying, but if I know him well, he's talking trash about things he doesn't understand (probably reaping some psychic reward he really craves by angering others with insults). Ignore him too.
 |
|
|
|
Dude, are you a Noypi? Btw welcome to the world of Bitcoin  Thanks, and ya dude. a purebred noypi earthling from mindanao... You are lucky too. You just joined and already you won today's draw. ( I use random.org, in case anyone is interested, to get a true random number every day and today it gave me #36, the last number added to the draw list. ) But 2 or 3 of the sites said that your address has already been used today and so didn't pay out. You should use another address when you are checking these sites yourself. |
|
|
|
|
BitCrate still unavailable.
Tendrawbtc still unavailable.
Bitcoinaddict still not paying out.
|
|
|
|
Hello, im here for my 1st ever bit coin and im trying to learn more.
here's my lotto entry:
13GCwdibEafe33kLw35rjVvp37h3tCMtZF
Thanks Portnoy
added... Welcome! Hello, im here for my 1st ever bit coin and im trying to learn more.
here's my lotto entry:
13GCwdibEafe33kLw35rjVvp37h3tCMtZF
Thanks Portnoy
Fcking liar!  |
|
|
|
A democracy is 51% telling 49% what can or can't they do.
That is just one specific form "a" democracy can take. Just one form that does not define all possible forms. It's what they all tend to devolve toward, given enough time. Look at what the looters and moochers pulled off three weeks ago if you want proof. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. (Yes, I know that what we have is had was a republic, but with some democratic features. The looters and moochers successfully pulled off a 51% attack.) Like I say, things are working fine in my bookclub, and there are other democratic groups, systems, and institutions that appear to be operating relatively smoothly ( including Bitcoin ). There are also people who see the various problems and work to fix them. Did you see my mention of things like constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms to protect individual rights etc.? Democracy isn't some automatic fix-it-once-and-for-all solution that one puts in place and forgets about. It needs constant maintenance and improvement. The Taoists have a saying, "Don't let the great be the enemy of the good." Just because a certain system isn't perfect right off the bat doesn't mean we should discard it completely... especially when it appears no better alternative exists. Or is there? What would you suggest would is a better system than democracy, as the word is defined? |
|
|
|
|
Winner of today's draw: #20 Arrogance
|
|
|
|
It is my view that "democracy"
Your's isn't shared by most people which makes it a lot harder if not impossible to spread the right ideas. Instead of clinging to a term insisting it means something most understand it not to mean, why not use a "clean" word to be able to better communicate? It is the sole reason why I vehemently insist that Bitcoin is not democratic. Give up, man. You can't reason with Portnoy. Whenever he's asked to prove his beliefs, he changes the subject; if he is not indulged in this dishonest bait and switch, he throws a tantrum. What more proof does a person need to know that he isn't rational and he isn't trying to have a legitimate conversation about the topic? LOL What beliefs? Why didn't you answer any of my questions? Tantrum? Who rushed to put me on ignore? And why are you still trying to shout me down with large cap denouncements while ignoring anything I might say in response? And about hazek's statement about what most understand the word democracy to mean lets have look at the dictionary: democratic, 1. Of the nature of, or characterized by, democracy; advocating or upholding democracy. We can perhaps ignore the definitions that pertain to the specific political parties that go by that name. democracy, 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. 2. A political or social unit that has such a government. 3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power. 4. Majority rule. 5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. Isn't this what most people understand it to mean? Where is the part about theft and oppression by an elite clique? Remember we are talking about the word and its meaning here... NOT about some government who calls itself democratic but really isn't. How many times do I have to remind you of this? And yet you hazek, say things like: Just a suggestion if you really care about reality.. pay attention to how many people demonstrate and protest in the streets demanding that the government raise taxes, i.e. steal more from those who worked hard and got rich (calling it the democratic process) which is completely incompatible with the principles I outlined. There really isn't any need to do surveys, all you have to do is walk outside and look around. I know about things like this. I take part in some of those protests myself about the abuse of power by the various governments of the world, like America. I, and many others, protest not because America and Canada, where I live, are democratic but because they are NOT democratic. You talk about their crimes and say in brackets: (calling it the democratic process)... And you let them say that... you let yourself believe, seemingly, that it is the democratic process. Well by definition it is NOT the democratic process. I would suggest that most people do accept the dictionary definition and not the definition you and that elite clique would like us to believe. Or do you want to switch it around and say rather than an elite clique it is mob rule? Those are kinda opposites things aren't they? And about 'mob rule' and 'tyranny of the majority' I mentioned things like constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms. Why not address that? People are working together on solutions like that to improve democractic systems and to make the world a better place... It is interesting and perhaps very telling that you and the others who denounce democracy have not suggested a better solution. |
|
|
|
It is my view that "democracy"
Your's isn't shared by most people... Well I disagree... I am not interested in conducting an extensive survey to prove that, and I doubt you have any interest in doing that ( I hope it isn't a dogmatic belief on your part, but its no big deal if it is ), so there we have it. I gave voice ( so to speak ) to my thoughts on the subject and others shared their thoughts and feelings. Works for me. Thanks, everyone, for the glimpse into other reality tunnels.  |
|
|
|
Whether there is any government in the world that is like that is irrelevant, as you say, it is the principles we hold dear as we move forward and strive to improve our lot that is most important.
Actually you may have misunderstood. How we define a "government" today cannot exist following those principles, by definition it can't. So it is relevant, what isn't relevant is how we'd end up organized if we adhered to those principles but we never could end up with a government and follow those principles at the same time. Ever. I call what would end up or not a proprietariat. Moj post on the subject from another forum: Propreitarian - proprietarianism - propreitariat - propreitariathood How to describe what we do want as opposed to what we don't want - a state? Instead of the often misunderstood and rejected based on preconcieved notions anarcho-capitalism, voluntarism, statelessness.., how about we want a proprietariat as antonym to a sate. A proprietariat is what would replace the government in a geographical area populated by propreitarianas (antonym to citizens) and is organized through proprietarianism (as opposed to statism). Here's where I got the idea from: http://prep4liberty.com/2011/01/what-is-proprietarianism/What is Proprietarianism?
Introduction
I’ve answered this question at some point, but I think I should probably do it again. I am going to break this up into a series. I thought at first I would write it in one long blog, but it’s hard to digest that way. This is going to be something akin to a platform to explain in more depth how a person who views the world from the assumption of private property would view various issues from a moral/ethical perspective.
Foundation
A proprietarian views his body as inherently (by definition) his own property. This is the most basic tenet in his worldview. From this flows the idea that he is the only rightful beneficiary of the skills and use of his body. All others who might benefit from his body must do so only upon his express consent. In order to remain consistent in this worldview, he must also view any act by himself or anyone else which would deprive anyone else of their rightful ability to be the sole beneficiaries of their bodies (absent expressed consent, of course) as wrong, morally. He cannot view such invasions upon others as moral while simultaneously viewing those same invasions immoral if committed against him.
Property external of the body is a direct result of benefit from a man’s own body. He either acquires unowned property by his own effort or he trade his skills/property with others. His non-body property therefore exists as an extension of the idea that he owns himself. In a world where this was the “common” moral foundation, the only “sin” against your fellow man would be attempts to circumvent the rightful ownership of property. Everything a proprietarian would find morally (or ethically) reprehensible could be boiled down to a form of theft. The reason I think it's important to have an antonym to the state is because of what's going on in the middle east right now. I didn't know this and I learned it by watching a video of Cenk Uygur, apparently Palestinians held elections and they want to ask the United nations for their "statehood", meaning they want to be recognized as their own state. And this got me thinking, what would we call what we'd want to have if we were in a similar situation and so I arrived at proprietariathood. A proprietariathood is by other entities recognized geographical area where people live under a proprietariat(antonym to state, replacement of a government), meaning they live by proprietorianism(antonym to statism), which can have many forms but always with the ground rule being respect for private property which starts with an individuals body. It is my view that "democracy", as a general term, doesn't require a "state" or any kind of centralized control structure to work. If people come up with other terms for such organizations I feel that doesn't make the term "democracy" any less useful. If the language evolves to the point where the majority of people come to define "democracy" as you and a few others do then I might agree that it may be best to use other words to communicate certain principles. I still don't agree with letting those certain powers-that-be twist the language to their own purpose, to more easily get away with their crimes. |
|
|
|
Portnoy can't or won't prove to us that "Bitcoin is democratic". Therefore, he strepitously exits the discussion with pretend indignation.
I am not trying to prove anything. "Is Bitcoin democratic?" That is a question. I am, though, trying to show that there are many ways to define "democratic" and the most accepted definitions have to do with equality and government by the people and for the people... etc. I am not only somewhat anarchistic but also agnostic, not just in terms of religion but everything. No one person, group, or ideology, has all the answers to anything. His deliberate irratinonality has earned Portnoy a speedy addition to my ignore list.
Thank the gods! |
|
|
|
To answer your question, if one's goal is to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential the best social system is the one where each participant has the freedom to live, to own and be in absolute control over their body and their property, meaning no involuntary participation or taxation.
And that doesn't go against the principles of democracy given the proper supports such as those constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms I mentioned. That is pure fantasy.  What I described doesn't allow for involuntary payment of subscription i.e. theft, it doesn't allow for through violence enforced arbitrary rules every single individual hasn't explicitly contractually consented to, it doesn't include the taking from some and giving to others through violence and robbery, it doesn't include the phrase "for the common good", and it doesn't allow for the delusion that a piece of paper is going to offer any kind of protection against violent psychopaths. Neither does democracy as I, and many, if not most, understand the term. Again you are talking about specific systems which are often incorrectly given the label "democracy". How would your preferred system work in practice. Would it have rules? How would such rules be decided upon if not democratically? The answer to your questions are: I don't know. But it's also irrelevant that I don't. What is relevant are the principles. As long as people follow those principles any type of rules coming about or agreed upon in any way are fine. That is probably the best answer I could have hoped for, and that is democracy as I and many use the term. People working together, finding common ground, finding good compromises and finding solutions that they can all agree to etc.,. Whether there is any government in the world that is like that is irrelevant, as you say, it is the principles we hold dear as we move forward and strive to improve our lot that is most important. Thanks for that. I am done with Rudd-O who still thinks I am some statist, showing that he doesn't listen to what I am putting forth let alone taking the time to understand it. |
|
|
|
I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first.
"The best social system is one where ____ "
That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?". I won't answer this in this thread. It is not off topic or irrelevant I gave you a reason why the topic you're trying to introduce is off topic and irrelevant. You didn't prove it was irrelevant... you didn't submit it to the board of inquisition in triplicate... you didn't define "offtopic", "because", "answer", "irrelevant" or "question"... you didn't genuflect to your statue of Ayn Rand before beginning your attack... |
|
|
|
To answer your question, if one's goal is to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential the best social system is the one where each participant has the freedom to live, to own and be in absolute control over their body and their property, meaning no involuntary participation or taxation.
And that doesn't go against the principles of democracy given the proper supports such as those constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms I mentioned. That is pure fantasy. What I described doesn't allow for involuntary payment of subscription i.e. theft, it doesn't allow for through violence enforced arbitrary rules every single individual hasn't explicitly contractually consented to, it doesn't include the taking from some and giving to others through violence and robbery, it doesn't include the phrase "for the common good", and it doesn't allow for the delusion that a piece of paper is going to offer any kind of protection against violent psychopaths. Neither does democracy as I, and many, if not most, understand the term. Again you are talking about specific systems which are often incorrectly given the label "democracy". How would your preferred system work in practice. Would it have rules? How would such rules be decided upon if not democratically? |
|
|
|
I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first.
"The best social system is one where ____ "
That's offtopic because the answer is irrelevant to the question "Is Bitcoin democratic?". I won't answer this in this thread. It is not off topic or irrelevant and has come up naturally in the course of conversation and debate on this subject and I will not subject myself to any more of your unnecessarily strict and formal interrogation, where you only appear to being willfully difficult, until you show you are actually interested in conversation, rather than lecturing everyone on what words they should use etc., by answering my questions and allowing more give and take etc. |
|
|
|
do you think, that when I use the word democracy, I am actually advocating an exclusive clique having special privileges and powers
over everyone else? Seriously?
That's what observably happens in every democracy, is it not? Unless you distort and pervert reality to deny what your eyes can see, I don't see how you could refute that. Not in my bookclub; we get along just fine. And do we need any more example to prove the statement, that it happens in every democracy, false? How exactly is your book club a "democracy"? Define "democracy" (don't just make up a definition, of course) and then demonstrate that your book club fits this definition (not in a "well, X is kinda like Y" -- that's not an argument I will accept). Of course, be prepared to be challenged by common dictionary definitions. Let's see how clear your thinking is. It is democratic. It is of the people in the bookclub by the people in the bookclub for the people of the bookclub. It adheres to the principle of equality of rights and privileges for all members of the bookclub. You did not answer any of my questions, thus we do not yet know whether your book club is "democratic" or not. So, in the interest of actually having a rational conversation, can you respond to the questions I asked? They are, to wit: 1. How exactly is your book club a "democracy"? "It is democratic" is not a response. 2. Define "democracy". You did not do that. 3. Demonstrate that your book club fits this definition 4. Be prepared to be challenged by common dictionary definitions. If you're not going to address what is being asked of you to prove your hypotheses, at least do me (and everyone else) the favor of not contributing more noise to the conversation? Thanks. All of that is answered in my response if you know how to read normal forum conversation... but here, more formal definitions: * government of the people by the people for the people. * a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges. * political or social equality. I am still waiting for you to answer my question, which I asked first. "The best social system is one where ____ " |
|
|
|
"The best social system is one where everyone is given a voice and allowed equal participation." Yes such a system, which some of us might call a "democracy", does often involve something that might be called "sacrifice" but is perhaps better called "compromise". Its also called "playing nice" and "getting along with others" ... something most people learned in kindergarten. What a nice way to describe mob rule. And what would you prefer? Every man for himself? To answer your question, if one's goal is to live in a society that has the freedom to maximize it's potential the best social system is the one where each participant has the freedom to live, to own and be in absolute control over their body and their property, meaning no involuntary participation or taxation.
And that doesn't go against the principles of democracy given the proper supports such as those constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms I mentioned. |
|
|
|
Note I said "social system" which perhaps can be differentiated from private matters.
Private relationships are social systems too. Fine... did you also read what I said about constitutions and charters of rights and freedoms? |
|
|
|
do you think, that when I use the word democracy, I am actually advocating an exclusive clique having special privileges and powers
over everyone else? Seriously?
That's what observably happens in every democracy, is it not? Unless you distort and pervert reality to deny what your eyes can see, I don't see how you could refute that. Not in my bookclub; we get along just fine. And do we need any more example to prove the statement, that it happens in every democracy, false? How exactly is your book club a "democracy"? Define "democracy" (don't just make up a definition, of course) and then demonstrate that your book club fits this definition (not in a "well, X is kinda like Y" -- that's not an argument I will accept). Of course, be prepared to be challenged by common dictionary definitions. Let's see how clear your thinking is. It is democratic. It is of the people in the bookclub by the people in the bookclub for the people of the bookclub. It adheres to the principle of equality of rights and privileges for all members of the bookclub. |
|
|
|
And we also have an excellent general term called "democracy." Get yourself a dictionary. It will help you with that clear thinking problem you seem to be having. You first imply that I'm wrong by saying "get a dictionary" and then you imply that I am somehow the victim of "befuddled thinking". I didn't say you were wrong but that there can be more than one word for any particular concept. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
