By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.
[citation needed] All of the problems you insist we solve exist in the current system. Really? They do? When is the last time you heard of private nuke possession? Are people allowed to juggle small pox vials in their front yard? Are people even allowed to possess small pox vials? Are there no pollution regulations? Are their no health and sanitary regulations? Is there a clusterfuck court system whose rulings only have to be followed if you're in the mood to follow them? Can your neighbor fire automatic weapons in his backyard? Do you have to employ research organizations to ensure that you don't buy contaminated food, products that support terrorists, etc.? Do you have massive highway interchange right at the end of your driveway to allow you access to multiple privately own roads? I didn't think so. No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well. It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse. Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.
I'm not claiming that democracy is in some senses better than tyranny. However, in some senses it is also worse. Either way, all I claim is that a lack of states would be better than any state at all, not that anarchy is perfect. Why do you so strongly support a violent monopoly? Why can you not imagine that just like every other good or service you need and desire, security can be better provided through a market than a geographical monopoly? Because unlike you, I actually have an understanding of economics and I know that your premise that "every other good and service can be provided better by an unfettered market" is total BS. Totally free markets have existed no where, ever. That's because markets don't just HAPPEN. They are established via sets of rules and regulations. Markets are created, they don't just exist. There's also these things called market inefficiencies that must be dealt with. Do you know what happens when you start allowing private security forces? They first have to be large enough to protect their clients from not just individuals, but also corrupt security forces. Now you've got an arms race, just like with world governments! These security forces are now very large and powerful. They don't have to answer to anyone, because they've got all the fire power, just like with world governments! If they don't provide the services you're paying them for, you can't a do a goddamn thing about it because they've got infinitely more firepower than you, just like world governments! In fact, they don't even need to go to the bother of contracting for services, they can extort money from you directly because they're big and powerful, just like world governments!Your ENTIRE system hinging on not just these, but ALL organizations and ALL people being benevolent, caring, honest people... but yet you openly admit to the corruption and dishonesty in the world today. That's the pinnacle of delusion. The key difference that makes the state option better than the private security force option is that states are still accountable. We still have a vote. We can still change things. You have NO say and there is NO accountability with a private military force. If you don't like what they do, your only choice is to die trynig to violently stop them. "There isn't much point arguing about the word "libertarian." It would make about as much sense to argue with an unreconstructed Stalinist about the word "democracy" -- recall that they called what they'd constructed "peoples' democracies." The weird offshoot of ultra-right individualist anarchism that is called "libertarian" here happens to amount to advocacy of perhaps the worst kind of imaginable tyranny, namely unaccountable private tyranny. If they want to call that "libertarian," fine; after all, Stalin called his system "democratic." But why bother arguing about it?" Noam Chomsky I take back the offer I made in my previous post. You're an ignorant troll, and I have better things to do than waste my time on you. |
|
|
|
Quote where you or any other the other libertards have demonstrated your system to be better than the current one. What type of demonstration do you want? I'm pretty sure no words would convince you that a stateless society would be better than one with states. How can I possibly prove this to you? It would have been impossible to demonstrate to a slave owner that a society without slaves would have been better than one with slaves. If I'm wrong, please list out the specific points I need to demonstrate in order to convince you that a stateless society would be better than the current, state run society. So far we've seen that your system would allow anyone to own nukes and allow any and all ridiculously risky behavior by individuals, up to and including behavior that would endanger all life on the planet. No, you've hypothesized that it would be the case. That's all. I could hypothesize that in a stateless society, everyone would voluntarily agree to dismantle all nuclear weapons. Or that tomorrow all of the world leaders will decide to launch all their nukes at each other. Still just hypothesis. Don't kid yourself. What you object to is the word "state" and nothing more. You have no problem with the geographic monoploy of a "security force" or any large business, which is exactly what you'll get in libertardland. You only object to it when "security force" is changed to "state", even though the net effect is identical.
Actually, you are somewhat right. I don't have a general problem with monopolies, just coercive ones. If a business becomes a monopoly through providing the best good or service, then I have no problem. If they gain or maintain their monopoly status through the use of coercion, then I have a problem. The history of states is the gaining and maintaining of geographic monopolies on the initiation of violence, through the initiation of violence. |
|
|
|
By the fact that current reality says it works better than the alternative.
[citation needed] All of the problems you insist we solve exist in the current system. No system will ever be perfect, because human nature is imperfect, but after thousands of years of struggle, mass death, disease, war, enslavement, etc. we've managed to light on something that works reasonably well. It's far from perfect, but you've done absolutely nothing to prove your system would be better, in fact you've all consistantly shown it would be worse. Which, ironically, is why it never has and never will be voluntarily implimented by any society.
I'm not claiming that democracy is in some senses better than tyranny. However, in some senses it is also worse. Either way, all I claim is that a lack of states would be better than any state at all, not that anarchy is perfect. Why do you so strongly support a violent monopoly? Why can you not imagine that just like every other good or service you need and desire, security can be better provided through a market than a geographical monopoly? |
|
|
|
LOLOL Proof positive they have no brains, because this didn't seem to make their brains explode. His critique was not of anarchy, but of anarchy between nation states. How can you support his claim that the current system leads to all that violence, and support the notion that the current system is better then any possible alternative simultaneously. Is that cognitive dissonance I hear? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! So even though it's an identical system, it's evil simply because of the word STATE. Substitute "security force" for "state" and suddenly they're in love with the system. It's not an identical system, and you know it, because you support the current system, but not one without states. I know I shouldn't bother responding to your trololols, but this isn't so much for you, but for others who would eat the bullshit you put on their plates. What we object to is not law or law enforcement, but a geographical monopoly on the provision of law and law enforcement.Just as you support the provision of food, but not a geographic monopoly on the provision of food. If you want to critique this idea, show that law and law enforcement, unlike any other good or service, are better provided by a monopoly than by a market. |
|
|
|
Humans have to act humanely first. Try teaching spiders to not cannibalize their own kind. It's impossible. Most governments are just another form of rights cannibalism.
Ohhhh, how right you are. How truly truly right you are. Perhaps you have finally understood the core problem. If you believe humans do not act humanely, by what logic do you allow the majority to elect a minority to have even greater power over all than a normal individual!? |
|
|
|
What I mean is that whatever money is, it's the whole community of users who decide what money is (it can be imposed by a state). If the world decides that, for example, gold is not money anymore (not the case for now) then gold can lose all its monetary value overnight.
You can't be in the same exact place of a road at the same time, but a road can still be a common.
When you hoard money, you're lowering prices for all, and that discourages investing. Discouraging real capital accumulation doesn't sound good to me. I still don't know what do you think is wrong with my bakery example. Of course, if you don't see any problem with prics dropping consistently, it's harder to see something wrong with hoarding. I hoard euros and silver myself, so I don't see hoarding as immoral: it's just a consequence of the structure of capital-money.
I agree with what you say about gold, but I don't agree with the analogy to roads. Occupying a section of road does not increase its value to others. Yes, prices dropping means economic progress means the real living standards of all are increasing. It's the sort of thing that will eliminate poverty, eventually. I think you need to examine your assumptions. For instance, HOW do falling prices discourage investing? If that is true, why is that a bad thing? Why do you feel that you know the proper amount of investment, but everyone else doesn't? |
|
|
|
Sorry, have no time for evidence, its my own feeling, as I browse blockexplorer and mtgox every day. July and August were reacher for avg transactions amount per day. Also MtGox trades are also significantly depressed comparing to summer time and going slower and slower. I think "Trough of Disillusionment" phase of bitcoin HIPE Cycle is not reached yet. I thought it will be in 6-9 area, but now i see the bottom is ahead. Only my IMHO based on being part of market. This not makes me happy as i have some investments. Bitcoin needs some buisnesses, restricted by VISA, to be involved. For example if major gambling network owners decide to attach bitcoin as secondary or tertiary billing option, this will bring turnover to bitcoin market and its rate will significantly increase. Ah. I forgot that the purpose of Bitcoin is for its value in dollars to rise in order to make you money. |
|
|
|
I understand that, hoarding causes deflation. But as said in my example, deflation devalues real capital and that doesn't encourage investments.
The thing you fail to see is that money is a common. You're holding it now, but it belongs to the whole society because it is an abstract good, an agreement. The money you hold could be worth nothing overnight if society decides so.
So the way people saves should be the way that the society benefits more, and that's not hoarding.
Did you read/understand what he wrote? When you invest, you're investing in one company. When you hoard money, you're lowering prices for all. Sounds pretty good to me. Money is a common... what? I assume you mean a "common good". Common goods are both rivalrous and non-excludable. "A rival (subtractable) good is a good whose consumption by one consumer prevents simultaneous consumption by other consumers." That does not describe money. There is not a limited quantity of money. If you think there is, then you don't know what money is. |
|
|
|
Yes. Some are violent - let's say they're aggressive, even coercive. Shall we conclude that the voluntary groups must somehow muster a pretty formidable defense against the aggressive and violent groups? I think it's likely it will be necessary for the various voluntary groups to merge together to mount a solid defense. Naturally there will be minor disagreements. But some type of army will no doubt be necessary. Can you see where this is going?
States are inevitable.
States are only inevitable as long as people allow themselves to be ruled. If everyone (or even just a significant portion) refused to pay taxes, states could not exist. There are also ways to provide for defense of a group without standing armies. Namely, militias or private defense organizations. Or ownership of nukes  Chew on this... when slavery was considered acceptable, arguing for the abolishment of slavery would have garnered questions like "but how would the cotton be picked?". While a relevant question in some sense, it would not have changed the fact that slavery is immoral. I cannot tell you how problems (that exist in a society with states, I would argue because of states) would be solved in a stateless society. This is because I am one man, and problems are solved by many. That doesn't change the fact that states are inherently immoral. |
|
|
|
The state cannot exist without taxation.
That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes. No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent). They self organize into states? Yes, as well as organized crime families, but I don't see anyone arguing they are beneficial to society. They also organize into groups which are not inherently violent because they rely upon voluntary funding rather than coercive funding. I support the latter (voluntary), but neither of the former (coercive). Do you see the difference? |
|
|
|
The state cannot exist without taxation.
That's funny. You're kind of admitting the necessity of taxes. No, I do not believe that states are necessary (because humans self-organize) or desirable (because they are inherently violent). |
|
|
|
|
What are you ranting about?
Can you explain how threatening to put someone in jail, or kill them if they resist being taken to jail, if they do not pay you money is not violence?
The state cannot exist without taxation.
Taxation is violent.
Thus, the state is inherently violent.
Yet somehow you believe that an inherently violent organization is the solution to violence?
Can you explain this paradox?
|
|
|
|
That number is guaranteed to increase - so this does not give you any information at all.
How do you figure that? Perhaps dormant coins had been awoken from hibernation only to be dumped on an exchange. This week's 'days destroyed' look a bit like April.
Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. |
|
|
|
He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others.
I can assure you - I don't have a blind spot for chaos, which results in huge death rates. Do you want a prime example of your libertarian system at work everyday in a really big way? It works exactly as you have specified. It's called the world. It has 192 members, and each claim their own property and do what they wish on their own property. Hands off to anyone else! There is no centralized authority. It's a classic example of "If you're on my property, you follow my rules!" Disagreements are worked out via sanctions, courts, treaties, private security forces, weapons, etc. Many have nuclear weapons! Imagine that. Kind of like your lib-land, eh? It is true that nation states interact in a way that is anarchic. However, they are still nation states, which are systems of institutionalized violence. They rely upon violence for funding, and all your hand waving will not change the fact that if you ignore the tax man (an act which can only be construed as violent by twisted logic), a man shows up your door with a gun. How do you expect such violent monoplies to act to one another? It's a system built upon violence. You can see it if you try, but it does call into question everything you think you know. This fact will sit in the back of your mind, nagging you, until one day you see it. What is your alternative proposal? One world government? One violent state to rule them all? You really want to stop the violence? Stop paying taxes, starve the beast. Without your money, it has no power. |
|
|
|
Like I said, you advocate violence but you wish to blame others for "making you do it".
I advocate that you use common sense. You also advocate violence. He's got a blind spot for institutionalized violence. It's not really his fault, it was taught to him as a child and he has yet to be successfully deconverted. I really wonder why it's easier for some to see it than others. As Monty Python said, "come and see the violence inherent in the system." |
|
|
|
Bitcoins will drop below 4 in near weeks. There is no economy, no any significant turnover. Almost all turnover is generated by speculations and investments. # of transactions per block in blockexplorer are smaller and smaller over time. So why should it go up? It just a bursted bubble in a current level of popularity.
Instead of inspecting mtgox graphs you better inspect internal block chains for a volume and transaction dynamic over time to predict bitcoin value.
Assertions lacking evidence! Also, real exchange of Bitcoin IS increasing. See: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed |
|
|
|
|
Omg democracy is unworkable because people could vote to allow the juggling of smallpox on front lawns!
It's about as realistic as your fantasy scenarios.
|
|
|
|
I consider living in a world where justice exists, to be a benefit. I guess some people would kill their own mother to save their skin. I can't change your mind if that's your point of view. I certainly won't have anything to do with it though.
You're going to have to define your version of justice. Living in a world where millions die for a pulled-from-ass "right" for anyone to own a nuke isn't justice by any definition familar to anyone on this planet. Living in a world where trivial, pointless "rights" like the "right" to own a nuke and the "right" to juggle knives on a life raft supercede real, substantial rights like the right to life isn't justice by any definition that any mentally stable person is familiar with. Oh, and you still have answered neither my nor hawker's questions.We are currently living in a world, run by governments, where millions die from hunger, war, disease, etc. Your scenario of an old lady detonating a nuke she somehow aquired is pure fantasy. So why don't you show us how having governments solves the problems we have with governments. |
|
|
|
your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.
Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified" Which is exactly what all the libertarians in this thread have said. Ironic, no? We've got what we want peacefully. We have democratic societies where we all get together to make rules that everyone agrees to follow, even if they don't necessarily agree with all of them. Compromise is part of living in the real world. It's you idiots that make up a small minority of people (otherwise you'd already have the world you want) that want to force the rest of society that vastly outnumbers you to conform to your worldview via violence. I agreed to nothing. I follow some rules because I agree with them (rules against harming others), some because otherwise excessive violence would be used against me (taxes), and others not at all. Yet in all of this time I have never agreed to any of those laws. |
|
|
|
your philosophy boils down to one sentence, so I think the common man can grasp it.
Ooh, let me do yours. "If you can't get what you want peacefully, the initiation of violence is morally justified" |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
