This is fucking funny. I burst out laughing when I saw the carrot in his mouth. From now on, in this forum, whenever someone writes a post and attempts to make an argument which is patently illogical I'm just going to say: USE CARROTS! That should be a sufficient reply. |
|
|
|
Yeah, it's more the whole infinite accumulation of property that is permitted and encouraged that would cause mafia type activities I think.
You inevitably need protection organizations to help protect your property, because you can't do it yourself. The reason you can't do it yourself is that you have too much of it.
If I have one house, I can live in it, and defend it. I can also rely on the local community to help me out, 'cause I would help them out.
If I have two houses, I can live in one. I can't live in the other, so I have to pay someone else to look after it. The community around that second house isn't going to care what happens to the house as much, because they don't have any personal contact with the owner.
If I have 1000 houses (perfectly possible in an infinite accumulation capitalist society), I have to pay other people to look after them. Based on humanities previous experiences with societies where infinite resource accumulation happened, I'd have to say that it doesn't bode well for those who don't have.
But, you know, I think we have different priorities, in which case arguing is pretty pointless.
Basically the key to all this is whether or not you believe the initiation of coercion is an acceptable method of solving social problems. The only way you are going to limit people from owning more capital than they can "use" is through coercion. If you allow markets to thrive, and as long as interactions are voluntary, then yes, some people will end up with more capital than others. Possibly more than they can use. However, to say that someone has more capital than they can use is completely subjective. Who gets to decide how much each person is going to have? Is two houses really more than someone can use? Could they not live in one and let their son live in the other one? Is four rakes too many for a gardener? What if he has three children who help in the garden? If so, is five too many? If it is, how will you enforce that no one will have more than five rakes? Also, the free market is actually the best defense against infinite resource accumulation because it rewards those who uses their resources the most efficiently and punishes those who don't. In a society with government, the wealthy can use the coercive monopoly of the government to gather and hold resources. They don't have to protect their resources themselves, because they can get the government to do it for them with the taxpayers footing the bill. However, in a free market they would have to hire someone to protect their property, as you say, and this would necessarily limit how much capital they could accumulate. The more they had the harder it would be to take care of it and protect it. You are making the assumption that protection agencies are a bad thing, whereas they would actually help hold society together. Mafias coalesce around black markets, which are created by governments. There are no alcohol or coffee mafias because society isn't arbitrarily banned from purchasing and producing those products. Conflict is almost always more expensive than cooperation, so in a free market society mafias would not be able to maintain the strength they can under government. Mafias and governments do not seek to please their customers, unlike private companies who have to please their customers in order to survive. Private defense and insurance institutions would have vested interests in cooperating with each other and providing fair, excellent service to their customers. |
|
|
|
In the same way the meaning of the word `Hacker` has changed meaning, so the word `Anarchy` means something completely different.
Why not coin a new phrase for goodness sake!
Im an alpacifist. I'm an non-aggressionist adherent of non-aggressionism. I'm a nonarchist. |
|
|
|
I'm actually stevenbucks so you're in the clear. /solved
PM me your address. |
|
|
|
Hunt down StevenBucks, post a picture of his decapitated head to the forum and we'll be satisfied. Kidding. I for one believe you, but The Kid is right. You've stated that you're not him, so just carry on and prove over time through actions that you are not. Or sign up under a different account with a different user name. You are new enough that you are not going to lose a lot by switching to a new profile. It boils down to a cost benefit analysis for you, but it's my opinion that your actions so far have proven that you are not StevenBucks and that if you continue to act honestly and fairly everyone will come around. Besides, logically, if StevenBucks were to come back to the forum why the hell would he choose a username so close to his previous one? It would be far more likely he'd create a new name completely different from his previous one. UNLESS he came back to make amends, in which case he is not you either because you're not trying to make amends.  Long story short: The Script welcomes you to the bitcoin forum and looks forward to the many positive contributions you will bring to this community. |
|
|
|
no to the gold cult, I think you're being really unfair to the "anarcho" capitalists. They aren't fascists. It's just that their ideas would result in a mafia run society.
(Not that I like the government any more than they do.)
So then is humanity completely fucked? What would the ideal, yet workable system be in your opinion? Direct democracy? Anarcho socialism? Edit: P.S. Your name makes me think you lean more towards anarcho-socialism/communism. How would that society be any better than an anarcho-capitalist society? |
|
|
|
As I've stated elsewhere on this forum, I'm about to sell most of my 7 million coins so you all better get out now before bitcoin loses most of its value. You have been warned.
If it was intentional (which I assume), I congratulate you for making a very good joke. Yes. Thank you. I'll include a disclaimer next time for the people who have broken humor detectors. |
|
|
|
Well, actually the hope is kinda that it will make it so. I sold just before this started. ;P
EVERYBODY, GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
Maybe, maybe not. Okay, I'm happy. I bought in again at a reasonable price. I probably shouldn't joke about trying to manipulate the market. It was really obviously a joke to me (I'd only sold 4 BTC, I wound up losing 0.50), but nobody could have known I didn't really have anything to lose, and there are other people on here who are really serious about manipulating the market. You mean like someone claiming they are about to sell more BTC than exists?  There's only 5,995,950 BTC out there. Next time visit http://bitcoinwatch.com/ before claiming you will sell t millions btc What are you saying, man? I thought it was so patently absurd that no one would take it seriously. It was supposed to be a joke. |
|
|
|
Well, actually the hope is kinda that it will make it so. I sold just before this started. ;P
EVERYBODY, GET OUT WHILE YOU STILL CAN!
Maybe, maybe not. Okay, I'm happy. I bought in again at a reasonable price. I probably shouldn't joke about trying to manipulate the market. It was really obviously a joke to me (I'd only sold 4 BTC, I wound up losing 0.50), but nobody could have known I didn't really have anything to lose, and there are other people on here who are really serious about manipulating the market. You mean like someone claiming they are about to sell more BTC than exists? What are you saying, man? |
|
|
|
As long as he pays you back. If he has no job then you just gave him a free fridge. But my point was simply that war itself does not "boost" an economy, unlike what I was taught in high school. Economies grow by producing and saving, not by producing and blowing things up.
I agree. But there can be a temporary boost after the war for those economies that are still stable and fully functioning. I'm not trying to say it's the best economic strategy, not by far. Of course, today's wars are completely useless for our economy since we (US) spend way too much on bombs, and we fund the reconstruction efforts instead of lending to the local economy. Oh, and we choose our contractors based on who has enough connections to get a no bid contract. But, in the limited example given, I think there is a valid point. I completely agree. I just get tired of hearing the broken window fallacy, over and over and over again. War and natural disasters do not help economies. |
|
|
|
Your welcome.
My welcome? I wish you really were selling millions, I'd pick up a few of them. Heh. "You're" welcome. You'd think I'm an American or something, by my careless grammar. |
|
|
|
|
As I've stated elsewhere on this forum, I'm about to sell most of my 7 million coins so you all better get out now before bitcoin loses most of its value. You have been warned.
|
|
|
|
WW2 was not the cause for the recovery of the US economy. You do not put all your efforts into things that go up in smoke and then economically better your standing. You build things that others need and are willing to exchange for the things they built. If those things don't match you use an intermediary liquid item (money) that allows you to trade that which you do need for what others need from you. This is the only way to progress I've heard of.
He explained it later. War means the production of weapons and other war-related stuff. It's a boost for economy. But after the war soldiers com back and look for job and you don't need to produce that much of war-related stuff anymore. So the government decided to send soldiers to colleges to delay impact of new workforce. One problem solved. Europe is in ruins, almost every strong nation is in ruins. They need to rebuild it. American economy left unscratched so they start to produce essential goods for Europe and lend money to buy this american stuff. That's why american economy went up. At least that's what he says. I remember that I learned something similar during history lessons in high-school. When you build a refrigerator you expend time, money and resources and then someone ends up with an item they can use to store their food and prevent if from spoiling as quickly as it would otherwise. When you build bombs, you drop them on someone else's refrigerator and you both end up with nothing. This is why war does not help an economy. However, the US economy probably did benefit from being the largest and most advanced, once Europe got back on its feet. He needs a new refrigerator, and since you blew up the factory, he has to buy it from you. Right. But if he has no money and no job he can't afford to buy my refrigerator. Once his economy recovers though, he'll start buying my refrigerators. Unless you lend him the money to buy his fridge. Then you get to sell a fridge and buy a slave . As long as he pays you back. If he has no job then you just gave him a free fridge. But my point was simply that war itself does not "boost" an economy, unlike what I was taught in high school. Economies grow by producing and saving, not by producing and blowing things up. |
|
|
|
|
I'd rather decentralize the power then keep it all in a small group of individuals who invariably become corrupted. You want to give a single group of people the coercive monopoly, allow them to write the laws, allow them to enforce the laws and then keep them accountable? Is it any wonder it's never worked? The Great American Experiment was the best so far, but it too is about to end in a death-throw of tyranny.
The key concept for me is voluntary interactions versus coercive interactions.
|
|
|
|
WW2 was not the cause for the recovery of the US economy. You do not put all your efforts into things that go up in smoke and then economically better your standing. You build things that others need and are willing to exchange for the things they built. If those things don't match you use an intermediary liquid item (money) that allows you to trade that which you do need for what others need from you. This is the only way to progress I've heard of.
He explained it later. War means the production of weapons and other war-related stuff. It's a boost for economy. But after the war soldiers com back and look for job and you don't need to produce that much of war-related stuff anymore. So the government decided to send soldiers to colleges to delay impact of new workforce. One problem solved. Europe is in ruins, almost every strong nation is in ruins. They need to rebuild it. American economy left unscratched so they start to produce essential goods for Europe and lend money to buy this american stuff. That's why american economy went up. At least that's what he says. I remember that I learned something similar during history lessons in high-school. When you build a refrigerator you expend time, money and resources and then someone ends up with an item they can use to store their food and prevent if from spoiling as quickly as it would otherwise. When you build bombs, you drop them on someone else's refrigerator and you both end up with nothing. This is why war does not help an economy. However, the US economy probably did benefit from being the largest and most advanced, once Europe got back on its feet. He needs a new refrigerator, and since you blew up the factory, he has to buy it from you. Right. But if he has no money and no job he can't afford to buy my refrigerator. Once his economy recovers though, he'll start buying my refrigerators. |
|
|
|
|
Don't worry, the price is about to drop because I'm going to sell off the vast majority of my 7 million coins. I advise you to sell now before the value plummets too far. There's your insider tip. Your welcome.
|
|
|
|
This thread is awesome and inspiring. I'm trying to figure out things I can sell for BTC.
I know a certain wholesaler who would be glad to set you up with drop shipping (or being a stocking dealer, whichever) Here's "his" website: http://shamblindistribution.com/I live very far away from Florida so wouldn't I be at a disadvantage? |
|
|
|
WW2 was not the cause for the recovery of the US economy. You do not put all your efforts into things that go up in smoke and then economically better your standing. You build things that others need and are willing to exchange for the things they built. If those things don't match you use an intermediary liquid item (money) that allows you to trade that which you do need for what others need from you. This is the only way to progress I've heard of.
He explained it later. War means the production of weapons and other war-related stuff. It's a boost for economy. But after the war soldiers com back and look for job and you don't need to produce that much of war-related stuff anymore. So the government decided to send soldiers to colleges to delay impact of new workforce. One problem solved. Europe is in ruins, almost every strong nation is in ruins. They need to rebuild it. American economy left unscratched so they start to produce essential goods for Europe and lend money to buy this american stuff. That's why american economy went up. At least that's what he says. I remember that I learned something similar during history lessons in high-school.
When you build a refrigerator you expend time, money and resources and then someone ends up with an item they can use to store their food and prevent if from spoiling as quickly as it would otherwise. When you build bombs, you drop them on someone else's refrigerator and you both end up with nothing. This is why war does not help an economy.
However, the US economy probably did benefit from being the largest and most advanced, once Europe got back on its feet.
|
|
|
|
|
I love this forum. So much awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
