I think the initial discrepancy still stands: Libertarian concept of ownership is not justified. (not according to justice). Economic Inequality can only be maintained using unjustified authority (again justice, not justification!), of course within limits. Libertarians (capital L!) do not strive after a classless society, but Anarchists do.
But quite frankly I don't see any use for either term, with l or L.
I think it's an important distinction; I believe, if a person wants to participate in a hierarchy (and I've met these people who like classes, i.e. the Libertarians), then they should have the freedom to do so. OTOH, people who do not want to participate in hierarchies should also have this right; the world's a big place and I think there's room enough for both of these kinds of people to live, so long as they do so voluntarily. Of course, they would clash if they decided to try to live with one another, but this kind of stuff, the diff between hierarchies and anarchy, seems to be based entirely on a person's personality. I believe this all falls under the philosophy of libertarianism; I don't think we'll ever be able to convince everyone that anarchy is the answer (I haven't had much luck anyhow), but I do believe we can convince people not to impose their beliefs onto others. |
|
|
|
Well, this is awkward  I'm sorry for my previous words EM, I've always seen libertarian as a blanket term including anarchism as its end destination (as opposed to authoritarianism always leading to fascism), so I always figure anti-libertarian individuals are in support of the state and violence et al. Then again, many libertarians are still in favor of the state... |
|
|
|
If it would only take one sentence my concept of justice is that no individual has power over another. Your sense of justice is a subset of mine.
Plot-twist: he was an anarchist all along! |
|
|
|
Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you. It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha  This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us. Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end. It seems you Libertarians have some problems with ethics if that is your concept of justice. My concept of justice doesn't involve one group having special rights over another; however, my concept of justice isn't popular. Your concept of justice, however, is, and the states of the world do have sovereignty over the people, which is understood to be morally consistent, as I pointed out. Once we agree that this isn't justice, we can talk about what is. |
|
|
|
Btw according to this logic the goverment has justified ownership over you. It can protect you from any other entity trying to take possession of you, hahaha This is true; they do own you and I, because we give them the means to own us. Once we agree that it's better for each of us to own ourselves, this comes to an end. |
|
|
|
|
This is why I'm a libertarian: these horror stories will only stop once people take responsibility for their actions. A part of this responsibility is not allowing other men to commit immoral atrocities in your name. We're all responsible for these deaths.
|
|
|
|
Mr Reaney said: “Many people from the technology scene are really keen to make transactions. I’ve got people from all around the world now wanting to buy my burgers. There aren’t many things you can physically spend your coins on so people want to come and play with their imaginary money.”
I don't know how to feel about "imaginary money". At least pretend you are not doing it just as a publicity stunt. Heck, if bitcoin is imaginary money, then MP3s are imaginary music and JPEGs are imaginary photographs  |
|
|
|
You can argue that property is theft. I think taxes are great, as long as they are fair and just and spent on the right things.
If they were fair and just and spent on the right things, you wouldn't need to call them taxes I'm a Libertarian Socialist...
Are you playing devil's advocate here, or are you using taxation as the closest synonym for a voluntary contribution (since taxation is defined only by its compulsory quality, i.e. not having to do with libertarianism)? |
|
|
|
|
Does this count as irony?!
|
|
|
|
PS4 photo would've been cheaper, and with higher DPI.  |
|
|
|
to me, anarchistic ideology is a bit too simplistic. i get a lot of retorts, when they can't respond to my assertions, of "well government does that too." it's like saying you want to replace a faulty system with a faulty system.
oh, and "arming everyone with guns" is probably not going to be a panacea for world issues. someone told me that in doing so, you could prevent a big player from militarily overtaking certain regions.
I've been deeply contemplating the issue of anarchy being an unpopular solution with many people; I then discovered something today I found very odd!--this truly opened my eyes as to why it's a hit-and-miss scenario with people. Take a look for yourself.Mind you, I'm an EII, which belongs in the Delta quadra; what a coincidence, right? Compare this to the Beta quadra; this is actually preferable to people. It is here that I've discovered that not everyone wants to be bothered with self-governing; many people truly do want to participate in society as a group and make decisions with each other, and compete for higher positions in the social string. Finally, I closely considered this point: Individuals of the same quadra strive for a world where their four leading information elements are brought to the forefront and given the greatest freedom of expression while the other four are subdued and made to serve the leading four. What I'm aiming for is not to change a person's ideal society; everyone likes a different way of operating in society, so I've come to understand. What I'm truly aiming for is to change the idea that each quadra is trying to push the others into their way of living; instead, we should simply allow one another the right to live as we see fit, in whichever way works best for us. I believe this is the core essence of voluntaryism; we should accept the differences and choose not to make anyone else follow our own lifestyles. I want to participate in anarchism, and I believe other people should have the right to participate in hierarchies. |
|
|
|
I don't have faith in Bitcoin anymore because it's a fraud. No I'm not a Troll, I gave it a chance. I think it's a scam to bring in a new one world currency. The Fed Reserve wants this. JP Morgan Chase wants this. The tyrants of Wallstreet want this. China wants this. Can this not be any clearer? Even the so called "Bitcoin Foundation" are kissing the boots of the illegitimate government to regulate it and use it for their needs...The coverage has been everywhere on this despite other topics of greater concern are ignored. So this stinks to high hell and I'm done for the most part. I think other elements of survival in this Brave New World are more reassuring like metal, ammo, and etc.
I have to disagree with you here; the fact that you can create an infinite amount of bitcoin clones makes crypto-currencies "slippery", meaning it would be very difficult to get any single one set in stone. Your worries will be absolved once you go through the actual steps required to enforce the use of bitcoin on a global scale; it can't happen without certain prerequisites (such as complete and total compliance over how and when you use your internet), and those prerequisites don't necessitate bitcoin to control you; I'd be more worried about no currencies if governments achieve compliance on that scale. |
|
|
|
Something's going wrong  Now the images aren't showing up. |
|
|
|
My understanding is this: people have valuable physical assets and they have something called money. Money helps people to live together in large cooperative groups because we agree to use it as a store of value. It can be in the form of physical notes or numbers in an account, etc. If we want to live together in those large groups and have complex relationships with each other we need to use money. However some people have accumulated large amounts of money making them disproportionately powerful in our society.
Our economic system allows wealth to be passed on from generation to generation creating a kind of multi-tiered caste system. Sometimes a family's wealth stretches back many generations to when human beings did things which we no longer deem ethical such as slavery. Some people who made their money recently did so unethically, such as the bankers who caused our economic system to crash. Other worked hard for their money but the predominant determiner of how much value a person produces is on what tier of the system they were born.
If people are dissatisfied with the current distribution of wealth why should they agree to play a game that is rigged against them from the beginning? They have no obligation to honor the store of value that accumulated wealth represents. The only reason they agreed to start using money was so that they could live in large complex groups and enjoy the benefits of that arrangement such as the development of technology, medicine, improved nutrition, etc. If there are aspects of that arrangement which they do not like; such as wealth accumulating in concentrated nodes, they are under no obligation to fulfill the 'promise' that the money is supposed to represent. They can achieve this redistribution by ditching FIAT currency and using an egalitarian cryptocurrency instead.
As I said, money is the absence of wealth; nobody wants money, what they really want to do is get rid of it so they can enjoy wealth. No matter which money you use, it doesn't change who owns what land; so long as a small group of people own large swathes of land, and charge other people to live on that land, and prevent people from claiming that land for their own, money is always going to move into the hands of the few, and the divide continues to grow. Consider the following example: Two men are using this currency; they now have $10,000 worth of this coin each, for example. One man is the CEO of a global corporate empire. The other man, who works for said corporation, has an apartment and needs to buy a car to get to work. Are they now equals? Even if money disappeared completely i.e. communism, if the few still owned the many, the power structure remains unchanged and you would still have an enormous disparity between the aristocracy and the working class. You're not redistributing the wealth, you're just changing how that wealth is represented; the rich still own all the wealth. |
|
|
|
There won't even be 'poor' and 'rich' people because we'll all have the same amount of money. There will be people with valuable assets and there will be people with valuable skills and they will indeed have an advantage in the new world; but to say that if we redistributed all the money in the world equally it would all just end up like it is now after... how long exactly? A few days? A few generations? Immediately? It seems very unlikely that a complete overhaul of the entire economic system redistributing every single dollar would have no impact on our economic lives.
It's true that inequalities would emerge again, and some would exist from the very beginning because people would still possess valuable physical assets but make no mistake: redistributing the world's 'money' by universal adoption of an egalitarian cryptocurrency would have a CONSIDERABLE impact on inequality. Essentially we would cease to focus all our efforts and energy on producing luxuries for a small number of people. The energy would be distributed a bit more equally, that is all.
Money is not wealth; money is the absence of wealth. The rich will still have their wealth--i.e. capital--and the poor will still have nothing. The only solution to squash this divide is to disallow the rich a monopoly over force, the setup which stops the working man from taking ownership over his time and product. See here if you're having trouble understanding why the wealth always moves to a few hands. |
|
|
|
|
Assuming the power structures have not changed, this is what happens:
1. Everyone gets their coins
2. The poor buy the things they need to survive from the rich
3. The rich wind up with all the money and the poor have to work for the rich to get it back
|
|
|
|
|
Makes you wonder how much praise JPMCoin will get.
|
|
|
|
They're made up of people, yes, but the legal fiction surrounding corporations is silly and something only a to-be corporation would dream up and have enough power to push the state to approve of it Without the state to pretend that a corporation exists, there can be no corporations; they're just people running a business with the same risks and rules as everyone else. |
|
|
|
sentism
This is the second time I've heard this term and I cannot seem to figure out what it's supposed to mean. OP are you trolling for realsies? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
