2013-02-09 On Wikileaks, Bitcoin...

[goatpig]

There are a lot of different movements that share the idea that government power is inversely proportional to individual freedom, and they all disagree with each other at a fundamental level. As an example, a libertarian isn't an anarchist. It is true that an anarchist would agree on a lot of points with a libertarian when compared to a socialist, but anarchists and libertarians are still fundamentally opposed in that to first group wants no government whatsoever while the second wants to limit government power.

In that light, the author appears to be lumping several political movements together under the label "libertarian". It is in line with his overall lack of semantic rigor and I think it would be better for everyone to not give credit to this guy's definition of a "libertarian", but rather perceive it as his target scapegoat group around which this essay has been crafted. Essentially, this guy is not offering an honest analysis, rather he was presented with the concept of Bitcoin in association with libertarianism, chose his premise ("this is all evil") and proceeded to link one to the other in somewhat haphazardly fashion. The scary amount of contradictions will attest of that.

I don't think there's much of a need to go after this guy's contradiction to try and prove him wrong. This'll either be a case of preaching to the choir or into deaf ears. What's interesting though, is that in his essay he reveals his fundamental preconception about the economy and human behavior. Here are the 2 most interesting ones:

She uses her coffee as a lever to get access to Bob’s stuff. Bob, on the other hand, uses his shoes as a leverage against Alice.

Leverage implies negotiations. This person sees all trade as negotiation. The counterpart to negotiation is violence. People negotiate because the alternative is violence. Trade is a voluntary act of discussion for the purpose of profit. If both parties can't achieve profit, trade won't occur. If trade doesn't occur, it doesn't give place to violence. Only lack of profit. The question then is, does this person think profit is an act violence? Is this a shared pattern within Marxists? If profit is violence, is lack of profit a desirable alternative then?

There's another side to this. Negotiation can't occur without leverage indeed. If I want your land and you can't defend it, I'm gonna take it, period. Both parties need to have leverage. If trade was negotiation, then Alice and her coffee would never be able to buy a house from Pete, since Pete cannot possibly need enough coffee in his lifetime to be worth a house (using the author's premise: "we trade for what we need"). The implication is that even if you embrace the author's twisted premise you come to the conclusion that you'll need an intermediary item of barter to conclude any significant trade (whatever you can get straight up for coffee will lose significance in the face of what you can't get). Hence, money is needed.

she uses his dependency on money to get his shoes

This is a recurring theme I see with a lot of socialist friendly movements and people: "Dependency on money". As if money alone was desirable, disregarding its function in the economy. The idea that people trade for money simply for the money and not the value attached to it is to be oblivious to the organic function money fulfills. People don't have a dependency on money, as some sort of a disease. They simply prefer receiving money instead of another random object. This is where the fundamental discordance appears. This firm conviction that money is an imposed burden instead of a preferred choice. What's amusing about this stand point is that it is contradictory with the Marxist premise, where supposedly people mold reality instead of being molded by it.

Finally, a few quotes that made me go "what?"

[money is] a systematic reason to cross each other

This is outright dishonest. If all trade is negotiation as the author purports, then regardless of the nature of the trade and the items traded, violence is always the alternative. Money is evil, that's the author's premise, not his conclusion.

If the libertarian picture of the free market as a harmonic cooperation for the mutual benefit of all was true, they would not need these signatures to secure it. The Bitcoin construction—their own construction—shows their theory to be wrong.

Mutual benefit of all? Now he is bagging Marxist ideology with "Libertarianism". Indeed under Marxist premise, defending your property makes no sense as private property is a big no-no.

[1715149621]

1715149621

[1715149621]

1715149621

[1715149621]

1715149621

[1715149621]

1715149621

[xcsler]

The economic ideologies espoused in the chapter read like a public Bitcoin address, completely nonsensical.

[kiba]

There are a lot of different movements that share the idea that government power is inversely proportional to individual freedom, and they all disagree with each other at a fundamental level. As an example, a libertarian isn't an anarchist. It is true that an anarchist would agree on a lot of points with a libertarian when compared to a socialist, but anarchists and libertarians are still fundamentally opposed in that to first group wants no government whatsoever while the second wants to limit government power.

Anarcho-capitalists are under the libertarianism banner. Anarcho-socialists are definitely not.

[herzmeister]

Anarcho-capitalists are under the libertarianism banner. Anarcho-socialists are definitely not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fveMHVufUN4

[rebuilder]

If you and I trade coffee for shoes we live in state of blissful utopia, with no incentive to disagree or to cheat, rob or steal from each other.

If on the other hand you and I decide to trade our coffee and shoes for currency, perhaps because we'd like a convenient solution to the double coincidence of wants problem, then gravity reverses itself, dogs and cats start sleeping together, and we suddenly transform into evil capitalists who will no doubt slit each other's throats and start raping kittens at the drop of a hat.

That wasn't what the author said at all. They said, if everything was harmonious, Alice and Bob would simply produce what each of them needs and give it to the other, not in trade, just because they can and want to. The argument was that trading is inherently antagonistic, currency or not.

[goatpig]

There are a lot of different movements that share the idea that government power is inversely proportional to individual freedom, and they all disagree with each other at a fundamental level. As an example, a libertarian isn't an anarchist. It is true that an anarchist would agree on a lot of points with a libertarian when compared to a socialist, but anarchists and libertarians are still fundamentally opposed in that to first group wants no government whatsoever while the second wants to limit government power.

Anarcho-capitalists are under the libertarianism banner. Anarcho-socialists are definitely not.

As an anarchist I certainly don't feel I'm a libertarian. I know people who think like me on this topic. I also know of libertarians who are profoundly attached to the idea of government. Simple example: When libertarians would vote for Ron Paul, I would not vote at all. This is yet another strong difference within the loosely defined group that is publicly labeled as libertarians.

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.

That wasn't what the author said at all. They said, if everything was harmonious, Alice and Bob would simply produce what each of them needs and give it to the other, not in trade, just because they can and want to. The argument was that trading is inherently antagonistic, currency or not.

The point remains. If we all live in la-la land, trading is fine. As soon as we deviate from the author's settings, trading becomes evil and mankind crumbles.

[herzmeister]

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.

That's typical US-American brainwash. Social libertarianism has more historical precedence than market libertarianism. Watch this docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ

[pyra-proxy]

Wow... I hope the author of this article is not burdened with teaching the next generation, on any scale because this reeks of pompous celebrity liberal academia which live in my little pony ville instead of reality.

[iCEBREAKER]

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.

The first people called libertarians were French anarchists.

They didn't believe in a minimal "night watchman" state or even private property, in stark contrast to modern libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

It's a confusing concept to Americans, born in the land of liberty, who breathe the sweet air of freedom and historically practice capitalism

However to the benighted French, given their culture's background of communitarian feudalism and tribalism, anarcho-socialism makes perfect sense.

Vive la différence!

[goatpig]

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.

The first people called libertarians were French anarchists.

They didn't believe in a minimal "night watchman" state or even private property, in stark contrast to modern libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.

It's a confusing concept to Americans, born in the land of liberty, who breathe the sweet air of freedom and historically practice capitalism

However to the benighted French, given their culture's background of communitarian feudalism and tribalism, anarcho-socialism makes perfect sense.

Vive la différence!

Im french...

[iCEBREAKER]

Im french...

That's great, but you're a modern French not one of the olde timey left-anarchist French.

I'm well aware France makes some very nice right-wing libertarians these days...



http://www.alternative-liberale.fr/presse/060618_JournalDuDimanche_Mademoiselle_Thatcher.htm

/gigacrush énorme

[goatpig]

/gigacrush énorme

^ qft

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.

[grondilu]

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.

But the issue with anarchism is that the rule is that there is no rule.  It's kind of an oxymoron.  Anarcho-socialism only makes it more obvious.

[grondilu]

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.

But the issue with anarchism is that the rule is that there is no rule.  It's kind of an oxymoron.  Anarcho-socialism only makes it more obvious.

Actually anarchy means "no ruler". Anarchists can create and live by any set of rules they desire.

Would this include a rule such as "Ok guys, from now on and during four years, we will obey to XXX" ?

[goatpig]

Anarcho-socialism is a disturbing yet clever example of such difference, even if the concept makes no sense.

That's typical US-American brainwash. Social libertarianism has more historical precedence than market libertarianism. Watch this docu: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH43YHaUGyQ

First I'm French. Second, historical precedence doesn't validate an action or ideal. For ages, religious fundamentalists have had women stoned to death for adultery. In the civilized world (read the last century), it's only considered a precedent for divorce. That stoning precedes divorce doesn't qualify stoning as the preferable alternative, nor does it make it more sensible.

But the issue with anarchism is that the rule is that there is no rule.  It's kind of an oxymoron.  Anarcho-socialism only makes it more obvious.

I don't agree. Anarchism is a set of ideas based on the premise that society can be functional without rules, and that rules are more detrimental than they are beneficial. In that sense it is a guideline, to which you abide voluntarily. Socialism can only exist through rules. By that fact it is purely coercive, so it doesn't support opting out. Under this light, socialism can't use anarchy as its model since anarchy isn't compulsory, yet that is a prerequisite for socialism.

Actually anarchy means "no ruler". Anarchists can create and live by any set of rules they desire. It's when you try to impose those rules on another (become a ruler) that you are no longer dealing with anarchy.

I disagree with this definition. A rule exists if it is enforced. To break the rule means to be forcefully exposed to the punishment. If anarchists were to live under rules, and happened to break one, then they would be presented with 2 alternatives: endure the punishment voluntarily or opt out of the rule. Those conditions are contradictory with the mechanics of rules.

[goatpig]

Bitcoin has rules, yet it is completely compatible with Anarchy. If you choose to use Bitcoin, you automatically abide by the rules. You can attempt to break the rules if you wish, but you will simply be ignored by the rest of the network.

You're talking about mechanics, not rules.

[goatpig]

nice work, Byron!

[iCEBREAKER]

You're talking about mechanics, not rules.

And parameters.  As a general rule, mechanics need parameters or it just gets ugly.   

[hazek]

/gigacrush énorme

^ qft

The issue with anarcho-socialism is that anarchism means no rules and socialism is a set of rules.

There are rules in anarchism, just no rulers. That's the real difference between anarcho-capitalism and practically everything else.

[herzmeister]

First I'm French.

and von Mises was Austrian. Still he has his greatest following in the US. Which in turn could have had too much influence on someone in France.

Second, historical precedence doesn't validate an action or ideal.

I meant that in the context that most socio-economic theories, like the "anarcho"-"capitalistic", have never been tried in practice. In Spain some were, and worked well.

But the issue with anarchism is that the rule is that there is no rule.  It's kind of an oxymoron.  Anarcho-socialism only makes it more obvious.

your fallacy is an absolutistic interpretation of socialism.

First, when general assemblies were held, the results were recommendations, not coercive. There was no executive branch or the like.

Second, there were independent "individualists" who lived rather self-sufficiently on the land and essentially bartered with the collectives. They were a minority though, humans usually seem to voluntarily choose to be part of a larger collective.

Third, there were many different regions were people lived out many different flavors of anarchism and tried out different things. Lots of choices.

Fourth, what is a collective after all. A voluntary group that shares resources and risk, much like a cooperative or company if you will. In markets such principles of redistribution exist as well, in the form of insurances for example.