Bitcoin Forum
October 16, 2019, 11:20:06 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: 2013-02-09 On Wikileaks, Bitcoin...  (Read 3462 times)
grondilu
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1134
Merit: 1005


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 11:11:24 PM
 #41

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.

Sure, but in socialism you don't have the right to sell your share or to buy some.  In liberalism, you can.  Shares are then conveniently called "shares" or "stocks".
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
1571268006
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1571268006

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1571268006
Reply with quote  #2

1571268006
Report to moderator
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980
Merit: 1007


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 11:33:18 PM
 #42

Ok, I think this turned into a politics. Maybe we can get some moderators to split off the thread?

goatpig
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2338
Merit: 1125

Armory Developer


View Profile
February 11, 2013, 11:39:38 PM
 #43

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.

He has a great following in the US because they are culturally predisposed to agree with his teachings. That was your implication when you used the word "brainwash", and my response was that I'm French, implying I'm not culturally formated to agree with Austrian economics, and yet I conclude that anarcho-socialism is senseless.

Quote
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.

My comment about anarcho-socialism was at a fundamental level. The concept is contradictory. You are moving the topic to a factual demonstration like here:

Quote
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.

See, you may call this anarcho-socialism but it isn't. This is plain anarchism. It doesn't matter how the guidelines are emitted nor who emits them, individuals are at a liberty to apply them or not. As long as they don't apply it, then socialism isn't effective. The point is, for resources to be spread evenly, it implies those who produce more have to give to those who produce less. If they can choose to stop the hand outs, then socialism isn't effective, this is just an act of charity in an anarchy. If they can't opt out, then the hand outs are compulsory and socialism is indeed in place, because its guidelines being enforced are now functional as rules. Charity is voluntary, socialism is compulsory. Charity != socialism.

The "individualists" you are mentioning are proof of this. Socialism is fundamentally opposed to private property so it will either attempt to assimilate these individuals or wipe them out.

Quote
Fourth, what is a collective after all. A voluntary group that shares resources and risk

There are many definitions of collectives depending on how deep you're willing to delve into human interaction mechanics. The one you're giving is a rather high level definition that is the result of a lot of meaningful societal choices. I will settle with a lower level definition for now: A collective is a group of individuals who interact with each other according the same guidelines.

rebuilder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1616
Merit: 1000



View Profile
February 12, 2013, 10:43:08 AM
 #44


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.

Not at all. The point argued, as I saw it, is that trading always pits people against each other. It can not be "harmonious". La-la land, as you put it, is where there is no expectation of compensation. The author doesn't say this is anything other than utopian, they simply make the claim that Libertarian ideology states that free trade between willing participants is harmonious, and concoct an argument to show that isn't so. You can disagree with that, but they're very explicitly not making an argument that direct trade of goods is harmonious and trade involving currency is not.

Selling out to advertisers shows you respect neither yourself nor the rest of us.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Too many low-quality posts? Mods not keeping things clean enough? Self-moderated threads let you keep signature spammers and trolls out!
Roger_Murdock
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 342
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 12, 2013, 11:40:38 AM
 #45


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.

Not at all. The point argued, as I saw it, is that trading always pits people against each other. It can not be "harmonious". La-la land, as you put it, is where there is no expectation of compensation. The author doesn't say this is anything other than utopian, they simply make the claim that Libertarian ideology states that free trade between willing participants is harmonious, and concoct an argument to show that isn't so. You can disagree with that, but they're very explicitly not making an argument that direct trade of goods is harmonious and trade involving currency is not.

Yeah, I think that's right. But it's still an incredibly silly argument. The point that libertarians make is not that voluntary trade somehow magically transforms human nature in a way that eliminates selfishness. The point is that voluntary trade channels "selfishness" in a way that promotes the interests of both parties. The point is that voluntary trade is, almost by definition, MORE "harmonious" than coerced exchange. This is pretty basic stuff. But hey, he really did a nice job taking down that straw man he set up.
Pages: « 1 2 [3]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!