Society of entitlement

Note that this post is crystal-gazing.  

I don't believe it will happen this way; if it did, I'd question what the hell happened in that area that made everyone anarchist!  If anarchy is to be, each nation will become increasingly anarchic over time (assuming they have Internet access and favor bitcoin over their local currency) until the various states are too weak to entice their denizens into warring with neighboring nations.  It'll then be a domino effect; once one nation collapses and its once citizens are now ruling themselves, so will another, and another, till a minority are people ruled by states; of course, I do believe some under-developed nations will attempt to go to war for "free land", but anarchism works like one gigantic nation: if you try to pick a fight with one people, the rest will hammer down on you, knowing the danger of going back to rule-by-force.

During this transitioning period, there would be two international communities, with one being those in support of the state, and the other being those who are not.  The thing about anarchists is that they ostracize: they will refuse to acknowledge your existence until you meet whatever standard they've laid out.  So the anarchists would not want to participate in the 1st international community, they'd create their own and do a "with me or against me" sort of thing.

Anyway, if an anarchist society occurred prematurely, it would quickly become a martyr; the only thing states have going for them is their brute force, and so conquering a society of anarchists wouldn't be an issue.  Therefore, there would never be representation of a true anarchist society (perhaps a phony one but not a real one) in any kind of global governance conference, since they'd be annihilated before being invited.

Over a hundred games. 

For a right to hold any relevance in society, it must be acknowledged and protected by any who agree upon said right.  Most people don't acknowledge a right over their own body; they give in to the idea of sacrificing their right to individual freedom for the prospect of influencing others.  People agree to sacrifice their right to free speech for the prospect of shutting someone else up.  People agree to sacrifice their right to freely trade their time and energies for the prospect of stopping someone else.  Merely by waving power tied by string to a stick, always unreachable, we slowly relinquish our own capability to practice our own morals and principles so that we can control others to fit the behavior we wished to exhibit within ourselves, but failed to, and only do so out of fear of law--that is, for those of us who aren't enlightened.

But to be frank, I just flatly believe people don't understand how rights work in the first place; you can't help what you don't know.  The first step to resolving a problem is to acknowledge there is at all a problem.

I've thought about this matter before; the conclusion I came to was, land used to hold one's personal property--including one's home and backyard--constitute as personal land i.e. private property, whilst land used to work, i.e. factories and offices, where people commonly visit to perform their duties, should not constitute as private property.  Although people can agree that this land can have an owner and this ownership should not be violated, i.e. voluntary hierarchy, I think people would sooner opt to share these areas amongst anyone who fulfills the condition that the person actually contribute their time and energy there, discarding the chance of becoming super-rich for the benefit of everyone becoming somewhat wealthier as per hierarchy, as I believe the amount of people in this world who truly pine for such power are a minority.

I believe the confusion stems from the notion that there being no private property means people can never truly have a place to call home, which at first glance appears impossible and unrealistic (i.e. "utopian".)  But after all, wisdom is largely a game of semantics.

C'mon guys, I expected better.

The point is as follows:

1. Most people don't understand Bitcoin
2. People fear what they don't know or misunderstand
3. People resort to pack mentality when they don't know or misunderstand

I realize the differences between CryptoCoin and Bitcoin are plainly obvious to someone who understands bitcoin.  In this context, yes, CryptoCoin sounds like the dollar, and on the surface appears nothing like Bitcoin aside from the name: it's centrally issued and centrally maintained.  The reason why it is propaganda is in the implication, that the currency which inspired the idea, being Bitcoin, is being painted as though it is a tool by the fed for nefarious deeds (which is an accusation I have heard on several occasions), as though Bitcoin, just like the dollar, is an enemy.  Anyone who's been paying attention to anti-Bitcoin videos and articles will see there is a growing following of people who completely despise Bitcoin, for the same reasons mentioned above: they fear Bitcoin because they do not understand Bitcoin, and seek confirmation for their bias.

Now, we can easily wave these people away as sheeple or what have you, but remember that the majority of people in this world still believe, and firmly, in God and the state, if not the state alone, and are influenced by irrational methods.  Recall the central role in the game: it pits one common goal in young people these days, i.e. a change in the regime, esp. through violence, and a relatively new and unknown goal, that being to shut down this new (that is, old when the game takes place) and "only" payment system (as impossible as this is anyway.)  This normalizes a negative opinion of crypto-currency and confirms the biases of people who readily have doubt in anything that sounds like Bitcoin.  The implication that this money can lead to extreme, global centralization of wealth and slavery over the masses will leave an impression on anyone who remotely connects CryptoCoin to Bitcoin or whatever other Altcoin (like I said, people hardly care for the, albeit important, differences.)

I'm afraid I can't buy the idea that CryptoCoin was a happy accident mish-mash of words that just happens to coincide with the popularity of the new crypto-currency Bitcoin, and not only that, but in some kind of dystopian apocalyptic Orwellian/"Anarchist" world, which so many threads seem to allude to lately.  Merely because CryptoCoin isn't explicitly called Bitcoin doesn't mean the propaganda isn't there; there is a shaky idea of what Bitcoin is and what it can do to the world, and this is not exactly a positive image for "CryptoCoin"s.

Yeah; I'm curious, once it is released, if it'll receive positive or negative reaction to its premise.  I'm certainly hoping for the latter but, either way, I won't play this one.

Voluntaryist

There is no one who has no desire, no skill, no hobby, no interests, makes no progress, and still leads a happy, fulfilled life.  Anyone who does this is very depressed and unhealthy and would, upon overcoming whatever it is holding them back, begin to work again.  It's extremely shortsighted to believe people on welfare, whom I assume you allude to, enjoy being leeches; there is nothing fulfilling about this position in life, and no man aspires to be there.

Work.  Nobody can relax forever; to say you would is akin to saying you'd drink the ocean because you're thirsty

You could always just remember to pay your Netflix bill monthly

How am I being facetious?  You're saying your country would collapse if border controls ended from people flooding in, as if the whole nation was made of gold.  Yes, I realize it's the place you live, but I don't have that kind of attachment to it, and nor will the other several billion people who have no interest in living there.

I have a house, and these people have none.  I'm more concerned with understanding why there are squatters on my land, and why they do not have their own homes, than worried about getting them off of it; if they willingly became squatters and were just passing by, then so be it; I'd be a little more concerned with enjoying my life.  Anyway, I wouldn't shoot them, or ask the state to shoot them, whatever your flavor is; perhaps not many will agree, but I'm concerned about society and actually interested in solving its problems.  But ultimately the squatters probably aren't armed so a warning shot will get them off, if you really need them off.

However, this is a straw man.  People living far, far away from me on the other side of the nation, that I'll never meet in person, coming in, and for me to have the nerve to tell them to get out; that's much different than having squatters on the land I actually own, as that is my business; the business of people I've never met, I tend to keep my nose out of.

I have no idea what you're talking about.  And you're not arguing anything, you're just repeating bias and pointing out a boogeyman.  "We need X controls because zombie apocalypse" sort of thing.  Nobody wants to live in a nation that doesn't work; you've shown this by asserting there needs to be border controls.  Because of this, nobody truly wants to immigrate to a nation that's showing signs of overload; thus, people stop coming, even leave.  It's a self-correcting problem.

Coming from a guy who thinks several billion people wanting to live on an island (and the UK at that) is a real world scenario, I'm not sure what to make of this.


I'm fairly certain I'm speaking in clear English; if billions of people want to fit onto the UK island, let them.  If you don't like this, don't stick around for it.  What does this have to do with being a hippie?

I don't understand the reasoning: in a free society, there's no immigration controls, but there's also no emigration controls; if I was you in this scenario, I'd leave, excited about living in a world where all the stupid people had vanished to a concentrated area to kill themselves off.  This also has the added benefit of not needing tight controls on where you go and why, but you don't seem to find this agreeable.

Example?

Yes, I see that; your point is, people are too stupid to know what's good for them.  I disagree; I think people realize that, by the time the UK hit 100 million and it really started to get crowded, they wouldn't try to pile another 900 million in there, and then upon seeing this, that the UK somehow fit 1 billion people into its borders, that people wouldn't continue doing this clown-car routine and attempted to fit another billion people.  Long, long before this occurs, people realize either of the following:

"Moving to the crowded UK severely outweighs the negatives of living elsewhere."
or
"Moving to the crowded UK is not worth it."

And if the 1st is happening, you have far greater problems than a crowded UK; what the hell is going on with the rest of the world that the UK appears attractive?

Then surely everything works with these billions of people on a tiny island; I can't imagine a scenario where people would want to live in a broken nation, aside from them either being held hostage or liking it that way.

If your nation starts to buckle, why would anyone want to live there?  Is this the island of free blow jobs?