The reason I was bought into BitCoin was purely for the fact that it was not controlled by a central authority, and there was a limited supply of.
If the first real services are going to be illegal ones, or ones that I personally consider unethical, then convincing my community to join BitCoin will be much more difficult, and thus because I cannot buy local services with it because of this, I'd rather disassociate myself with BitCoin.
A potentially revolutionised idea, hijacked by crime and thugs.
So depressing.
There are already quite a few ethical services available. |
|
|
|
Racist much?
gypsies are people, just like any others.
It's actually quite absurd to call me racist, because I myself am not white and in my country i have suffered a lot because of racism. But of course you cannot know that so it is not your fault. I understand perfectly what racism is and what it is not, because i have felt it on my own skin. What I am saying is that it does **not** matter what **RACE** gypsies are. It's just their culture which makes them do illegal stuff. In my 30-year long life i have almost NEVER seen a gypsie having a legal occupation in my country, and believe me - there are a lot of gypsies here. 99,9% gypsies i know are either professional beggers, thiefs or scammers. In my whole life **MAYBE** i have seen **ONE** gypsie working legally somewhere some time ago, but i don't remember correctly now. So just imagine how many of them have illegal occupations comparing to legal ones. You don't have to be white to be racist. One great example of this would be Rwanda. Oh, and I'm Gypsy. |
|
|
|
I agree that some sort of money helps a lot as far as interacting with other communities. It can be useful internally as well, or it can just complicate things.
As far as an Anarchist brewery in current society it would be advantageous to form relationships with other workers collectives to source hops and malt and so forth. Hops are actually really easy to grow and could be incorporated with the brewery itself, barley takes a much larger amount of land, but would be a major expansion of operations and if there were a local agricultural collective that would make things easier.
As far as a housing collective the brewery would be taking in profits in sales that could be distributed to workers they'd have to buy food and clothes and all those fun things after all and as long as the collective is functioning as a part of a capitalist society they need to get those things from capitalist entities.
Forming relationships with other communities is always advantageous though, so, for example, if the agricultural collective that the brewery gets their barley from also grows food crops and perhaps chickens and such a relationship could be formed. People in a housing collective are also likely to be working at cooperative ventures and there could be some sort of relationship between the whole, especcially if legal ownership is held by the housing collective rather than by an external landlord. Taxes still need to be paid, but minimizing the interactions with the capitalist world is generally in the best interests of any collective.
Dairy farms can also make use of the spent grain from the brewing process. Cattle will eat it. The spent grain can also be fermented to produce methane fuel, or combined with peanut butter to make dog biscuits. As for distribution of the brewery's profits, I would think that it would go according to the total amount that each worker will have invested. In addition to their labor, the original workers will have also had to acquire the building and equipment. It seems fair that they should receive more of the profits. Over time, as the brewery grows, the new workers' labor investments will grow larger than the original workers. I think the cooperative would also have to allow for outside investment. For example, if a builders collective builds the building which houses the brewery, their work would count as an investment entitling them to a decreasing share of the brewery's future profits. I don't think such an arrangement would qualify as unduly capitalistic because the profits get distributed according to real contributions. Furthermore, the workers could always refuse or undervalue investments that would otherwise reduce their shares to nothing. So long as contracts which are entered into are agreed upon by all members, and do not include obligation upon those that are not yet a part of the collective when the agreement is entered into. |
|
|
|
Good day,
My name is Rosalina. I'm from Romania, and I work for a company that has contacts in several european countries. We decided to offer privileged time with young women, in exchange for bitcoins. We can accomodate for any wish you might have, but the price will depend on the requirement. Contact me by PM for more details.
Best regards,
Rosalina
Nice try, but i don't believe this even for a second. ---- PS. If any of you is careless enough to actually go to Romania or something, I strongly advise against it... Romania is full of gypsies. If this is a real scammer from Romania, there is 99,999% probability that you will get robbed or kidnapped if you go there... Believe me, i live in a country where there is a lot of gypsies, and they usually engage in such illegal stuff. Racist much? gypsies are people, just like any others. |
|
|
|
|
I agree that some sort of money helps a lot as far as interacting with other communities. It can be useful internally as well, or it can just complicate things.
As far as an Anarchist brewery in current society it would be advantageous to form relationships with other workers collectives to source hops and malt and so forth. Hops are actually really easy to grow and could be incorporated with the brewery itself, barley takes a much larger amount of land, but would be a major expansion of operations and if there were a local agricultural collective that would make things easier.
As far as a housing collective the brewery would be taking in profits in sales that could be distributed to workers they'd have to buy food and clothes and all those fun things after all and as long as the collective is functioning as a part of a capitalist society they need to get those things from capitalist entities.
Forming relationships with other communities is always advantageous though, so, for example, if the agricultural collective that the brewery gets their barley from also grows food crops and perhaps chickens and such a relationship could be formed. People in a housing collective are also likely to be working at cooperative ventures and there could be some sort of relationship between the whole, especcially if legal ownership is held by the housing collective rather than by an external landlord. Taxes still need to be paid, but minimizing the interactions with the capitalist world is generally in the best interests of any collective.
|
|
|
|
Do your friends have a navy? In the tradition of individualist anarchism, I think, I don't really like the idea of revolution or snatching remote islands. Can't we just adopt anarchistic behavior, in whatever little ways we can, to slowly convince our neighbors and change our present society? What if I were to start a brewery that embodied anarchist ideals in our present society? Could it work?
I think we could. It would have to interface with our current statist society, which would be a drain on resources, but there are breweries that are run as worker owned cooperatives (fishtail in Olympia WA is one example.) |
|
|
|
It means this.
if a factory is used to produce boots under capitalism the boots belong to the owner of the factory, under socialism they belong to the workers who used the factory to produce the boots. Lets accept your defintions of capitalism and socialism. Why is any of those arrangements bad? (I am guessing you think one of those two arrangements is bad) Ownership of the factory is a convenient legal fiction, it's a form of capital and isn't really sustainable without force. This is not true. There are examples in history. You can argue its good or bad, but you can not say its impossible. Also, you can not say they did not lasted. Every human society changes for worse and for better. The fact of the matter is that it is possible. And you can not say the prove is that they did not lasted specially when you propose a system that has never existed. So please, explain to me what is wrong with any of those arrangements. What's wrong with the factory owner owning the product of the factory is that then he has the power to set wages and prices, the employees do not have equal power to do so. This creates an inequality of power, which means that it is no longer an anarchist situation. The owner is a government. Anarcho-communism has also existed, in Ukraine and Spain, in both cases it was destroyed by a military attack, not subverted from within as happened in the American West. |
|
|
|
Babylon- I was thinking about this a few posts ago. It would be entirely possible in many places to buy land from the government representing a group of people, and then simply leave it communally owned or stake claims, etc. In other words, just work within the system and start your own system within theirs, and when you are big enough you can secede, which unfortunately would likely turn into a violent conflict. My personal dream is to group up with a bunch of people and buy an island, then work out how we distribute land and such, then see what can be done in such a system  Maybe when 1btc=1000000000000 USD I'll be able to do so  Stay in touch, your island sounds like it would be a good trading partner for mine. I'll see if I can get father MacGruder to come onboard with the brewing enterprise that will be one of our primary exports. |
|
|
|
Guys, why do you buy bitcoins at such high prices? The rate may still fall down and it can bring great losses.  Some people want to use them immediatley for transactions to buy goods? yeah, possibly people had auction orders to pay for and had to buy coins fast. I don't think there are that many auctions though. |
|
|
|
In the case of The Icelandic Commonwealth, it was the church that eventually destabilized the system. Gullible people were to blame Then the American Old West was already owned by the USA, they just were leaving it alone. When they finally moved in, people accepted them because they were part of the country already, but had been dealing with things on their own. Most recently in Somalia, the people are actively fighting back against a government being instated, and private property is defended in a way very similar to the Icelandic Commonwealth. I expect the Somalians will devolve back into Tyrrany, I hope they will evolve to true Anarchy, I sincerely doubt that they will manage to maintain their frontier sort of society for long at all. |
|
|
|
Destroy economically perhaps, by trying to undercut their prices, but no more so than any other business they're trying to take down. You could make the same argument about any business that competes with a company. And fair enough, guess we're just getting caught up in the debate and are a little gruff with each other, no harm done  But to be fair, most communist takeovers were fairly violent toward the owners of property, from what I've read. Please correct me if I'm wrong, this is related directly to my Thesis paper, so the more information the better! And I'm glad I realized I could just type A-Cap and A-Com, saves me lots of typing If everyone is in agreement that all interaction should be voluntary, then I think no matter who is right, the free market will chose  , from people moving between societies or organizational types depending on which is better for them. Personally, I'd rather live in an A-Cap society, not just because I think it is right, but it allows people to be rewarded for coming up with something that people want or doing something that people feel they should be rewarded for, rather than just being paid a set wage no more or less than your coworkers. So while we can agree to disagree and let each other be, it's always fun to debate  Communist revolutions, actually all revolutions, tend to be quite violent toward the holders of property yes. This is where we run into a basic conflict, there's not a bunch of free wealth laying around to be utilized by hard workers, there was in the American West, which was what allowed the society that evolved there to evolve, there isn't anymore. By this I mean real wealth, land and resources, not just capital. Bitcoins make a lovely form of capital, and I am glad that I have more wealth in them now than I used to, but I know that wealth has been redistributed from others, it's not something I extracted from the environment or created with my own labor. So yes, for a new society, of any sort, to be successful the wealth has to be redistributed. If it remains in the hands of the rulers then nobody, capitalist, communist, or anything else, is going to have any success establishing a new society. I may be an unusual A-com in that I consider a-caps to be far better allies than Authoritarian Communists, but I do think hopefully we've learned our lesson from trying to work with the Leninists in Spain and Russia. Those guys are jerks. You guys have a similar experience in the American West of being sold out by those that agree with you economically but not politically, however it was longer ago and the lines were not as sharply drawn, so it may not sting as badly. |
|
|
|
Also, correct me if I'm wrong but, it seems to me that bitcoin doesn't need much more developpement, does it?
it's going to need some tinkering with the fee structure at some point, so that transaction fees for transactions of less than a bitcent don't cost more than the transaction. I am sure that this can be done by the person running the client, but many of us don't know how to do that. It's also going to need an easy way to display the balance with higher resolution than one bitcent. |
|
|
|
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles. We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining.  Seriously you guys, if you read some of the links I posted it shows that non-governmental, non-monopolistic third party private property enforcement agencies work quite well in practice. Really? Why aren't they still around then? |
|
|
|
and charging an absurd premium for current work Why absurd? If it's absurd on a free market a competition with lower prices should appear. If there are people willing to pay that much for it, it's not absurd. That was my point, if Kiba "owns" the house and expects rent, in return for which he maintains the house, and I choose to pay someone else less to maintain it, he is still going to feel he is owed rent. From a practical standpoint all I get for the rent is maintenance, which I could get more cheaply elsewhere. |
|
|
|
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it.
If we don't have the same definition about what's unethical and what's not, then we're going in circles. We agree on many points, where we differ, as far as I can see, is how ownership is best defined, especcially without an external authority to do the defining. |
|
|
|
I'm not hostile to A-caps. I just think they're wrong. You guys have great morals.
Also, with that assumption (that A-coms won't allow A-caps to exist) wouldn't it be in the best interest of the A-caps to destroy the collective the a-coms were attempting to build?
Why? It's unethical. Eliminating an existential threat is immoral? I know that if I was living in an anarchist society, of any kind, and the neighbors decided they were going to build an expansionist militaristic feudal society next door I'd stop them as soon as I possibly could. and I'd hope that all my anarchist neighbors, capitalist, communist, primitivist or what have you, would have the same self interest in doing so that I would. Now mind you, I don't think that anarcho-communists are an existential threat to anarcho-capitalists, but that we are seems to be an assumption of many anarcho-capitalists. |
|
|
|
We need to get back to the basic and discuss ethical philosophy.
Ethics are great and all, until you start to bring guns into it. In the case of the landlord and the tenant both are acting ethically by their own standards. The landlord feels that he has a right to collect rent because he put up the capital to provide he house, the tenant feels he has no obligation to pay rent, because the land lord is simply seeking to extract value from past work and charging an absurd premium for current work (the maintenance, which would be much cheaper from a third party) both would be defending what they felt they have a right to if a conflict occured. |
|
|
|
|
I'm not hostile to A-caps. I just think they're wrong. You guys have great morals.
Also, with that assumption (that A-coms won't allow A-caps to exist) wouldn't it be in the best interest of the A-caps to destroy the collective the a-coms were attempting to build?
|
|
|
|
Then he gets outcompeted by the worker owned cooperative wait, so the workers cooperative can afford their own factory? So not all means of the productions is in the hands of big evil capitalists? Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course) You don't need any government, you just need a gun to protect yourself from thieves. Also most people respect property, so you can count on their guns too. I assume some factories were taken during the revolution that led to an Anarchist society. And you just made it into a who has more guns contest. I assure you, the people with the most guns don't respect property. You can see that by the way the government has been behaving currently. They strongly believe all the property to be theirs. |
|
|
|
If that's how the landlord and the tenant wish to arrange it.
Depends on how much you are charging for your maintenance services, and besides, if I have nothing that needs to be maintained, why should I pay you?
Because I still own the damn place? Says you. Without a government of some sort to enforce your ownership you don't (or the agreement of the tenant of course) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
