|
You could be a heavy capitalist and still think 'yes'. Since one of the arguments against forced production is that it doesn't scale, i.e. that it works in families and small tribes, but doesn't work well when co-coordinating millions of people.
|
|
|
|
in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.
in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.
I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature, I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.
I think your being unreasonable going from "resources are all already owned" to "forming a commune not possible". You would have to buy the land first indeed, but I don't think that deserves the title of 'impossible'. Land isn't very expensive, especially when a group of people put their money together. Even if you want to take over a pre-existing company, the employees would only need to save up for maybe 6 months or a year to buy it. If you contest that I'm willing to try the number crunching to work it out. Other then that I don't think your society is that bad. I would argue that the 'capitalist' societies would end up being more efficient, and thus end up being predominate. But the beauty of this system is that we could agree on reaching it for different reasons (i.e. while disagreeing on how it would it turn out). My main issue with AnSyn would be if the capitalist group didn't have private property, i.e that they would be invaded and taxed by the other communes. So your version is one which I have a lot more enthusiasm in. |
|
|
|
I already have google, I was hoping for something more specifically recommended. |
|
|
|
|
Could someone link to a source which explains the difference between communism and anarcho-communism?
|
|
|
|
My parents were hard core liberal progressives. I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction. After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)
I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening. Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist. But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label. Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best. I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent. I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders. While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed. If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds? |
|
|
|
Same here, I'm really glad at Google's competence  |
|
|
|
You could always just get a crappy cheap little netbook to put your safe wallet on and keep that in the safe. Saves a lot of faffing with CDs.
You're still going to have to connect to the internet if you ever want to spend the coins. Perhaps there will be a future market for a bitcoin laptop. An OS which uses completly read-only memory, so it can't get malware, and perhaps a design which makes it very difficult to tamper with. Then people could just put one of those little devices into their safe. |
|
|
|
I agree with the op, that the decimal place should shift.
Perhaps this only needs to be a client UI issue tho - all transactions could still use the current decimal places, and just in the UI the user could switch between 'BTC' i.e. what we have now, or a more user friendly 'UBTC' or whatever we call it, which makes them feel richer and is perhaps easier to use in mental math, etc (and which is perhaps the default 'view').
just a thought
*edit* just did some reading, looks like others have already suggested just making it a simple client ui edit. seems the easiest way to go.
This is the only renormalization that is even remotely practical right now, and there is nothing stopping anyone from implementing it locally. There is, since only a small percentage of us have the programming expertise to 'implement it locally'. |
|
|
|
|
Not only do I agree but I found it very enjoyably written. Though I disagree that it would languish forever below 1000%, I think culture would eventually adapt to using decimals simply because it would be advantageous to each individual who 'gets over it'. Just that it would take longer. Probably long enough to be worth the technical cost of changing it.
|
|
|
|
+1 for opposition to Libertarianism...
... which as far as I can see is eugenic moral philosophy applied to economics, and then somehow blindly morphed into social policy. Incredibly sheltered and limited in perspective, entirely at odds with global evidence for the sorts of policies that actually work, and based on the really quite infantile morality of "Individual Responsibility" - Nietzsche for teenagers basically.
So yea - let bitcoin be an experiment without imposing crank localised political ideologies on it.
Your describing a narrow scope of libertarianism. The moral philosophy part (i.e Rand and Rothbard) does not mean libertarianism = moral philosophy. Libertarian in the modern American sense simply means wanting small government. Most libertarians want that because it either works better, or produces the kind of the society they want to live in. They don't derive it from ethics. Even with anarchism, David Friedman (an economics professor) argues for anarchism working while completely dismissing the 'this system is more ethical' approach of Rand and Rothbard. |
|
|
|
|
My funds have arrived, took 5 days.
|
|
|
|
|
In my view the eventual consequences of bitcoin (or it's replacement) are not possible to stop in the long term without drastic supression methods (literally monitoring everyone's PC). So any attempt at regulation might actually be a good thing, just so people (including governments) accept it in the short term.
While I was typing this, evoorhees summed that up even better.
|
|
|
|
J180, re: RiskAPI fail.
I guess either: LL are blocking new accounts from transfers or as it happened to me before the RiskAPI itself failed lol You should file a support ticket with both Virwox and with LL and ask them what's up.
Btw. I don't know why you put your money inworld, if your intent is to get L$ only to get bitcoin, transfer to Virwox and then directly purchase L$ then and then purchase BTC. You don't need secondlife to use Virwox, except a valid avatar.
Yeah I was a bit confused. I did try the second method afterwards but even that has caps/difficulties. I guess I was making multiple accounts for things in one day. Anyway I thankfully found a group called bitcoin in second life who traded, so I finally own my 0.75 bitcoin |
|
|
|
|
+1 Noodles Skute, he brought my 5k Linden dollars which I otherwise would of been stuck with.
Edit: Called Bitlex here
|
|
|
|
|
Why is that an issue for buyers?
(this is coming from someone who has brought some off ebay)
|
|
|
|
I keep having this problem:  I did manage to get some through neteller, but even that won't work a second time. It's a little frustrating. |
|
|
|
|
Has anyone converted cash to Second life and brought bitcoins there? Are people interested in selling them that way?
I'm wondering what people think about that method.
|
|
|
|
|
I turned off Zeitgiest as soon as they talked about Adam's Smith's 'invisible hand' being religious intervention (rather then a logical process). I'm convinced they were being being purposely and maliciously deceptive in their portrayal of him just to discredit him.
If they do that with something I know about (Adam Smith) then I do not trust them about the venus project.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
