How evil is Bitcoin ?

[hugolp]

Chomsky the "anarchist" that constantly demands bigger government. What a joke.

I am discovering now a lot of really good left-liberatarian philosophers. Why do people focus on this guy? He is a joke. For example, he demands higher taxes on the rich while at the same time he is rich and has his money in a fiscal paradise to avoid paying taxes... He is very good with linguistics and he uses it as a charlatan.

[FreeMoney]

Chomsky the "anarchist" that constantly demands bigger government. What a joke.

I am discovering now a lot of really good left-liberatarian philosophers. Why do people focus on this guy? He is a joke. For example, he demands higher taxes on the rich while at the same time he is rich and has his money in a fiscal paradise to avoid paying taxes... He is very good with linguistics and he uses it as a charlatan.

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

[grondilu]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

I am SO looking forward to see an anarcho-socialist answer this question...

Edit:  there is obviously an answer in the anarchism FAQ :
<<
I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
>>

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Personnaly, I'm not convinced.

[Anonymous]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

I am SO looking forward to see an anarcho-socialist answer this question...

Edit:  there is obviously an answer in the anarchism FAQ :
<<
I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
>>

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Personnaly, I'm not convinced.

I like to ask people advocating removing my property rights what are they going to do if I refuse?
This makes them no better than the worse statists imo. They all just want to grab the gun in the room and use it to get their own way.

The other day I got a $300 fine for not having my seatbelt on and driving off in my car. The police would say they are doing a good thing   - and to prove how good they are if I refuse to pay that imposition they are able to come into my house,kill me,my family or pets and destroy my property if I refuse to pay-all because I didnt immediately obey their arbitrary regulations.
When are people going to see that its all a con job?

[kiba]

When are people going to see that its all a con job?

Arguments are soldiers not meant to be stabbed in the back. Pretty much every human beings, even anarcho-capitalists, have a series of self-reinforcing beliefs. It's like building a strong unshakable foundation. These communists have formidable suit of armor to penetrate through.

In any case, I don't see how homelessness, unemployment, poverty, can be destroyed by the elimination of property. I thought western civilization in general are having higher standard of living.

Just a few weeks ago, my family got a really big TV that can also do 3D.

[FreeMoney]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

I am SO looking forward to see an anarcho-socialist answer this question...

Edit:  there is obviously an answer in the anarchism FAQ :
<<
I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
>>

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Personnaly, I'm not convinced.

That's clearly an insufficient argument since you could get rid of 100% of crime by killing everyone.

And how the &$#^ are they going to get rid of property without committing property crime? And if property crime is okay, then there goes that reason for getting rid of it.

[hugolp]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

Well, what about mutualism? Its socialism and anarchism, and I am finding it ok. I might not agree with everything, but at least it makes sense, its coherent and has realistic views. But Chomsky is just charlatanery. Apart from being cautivated by his beautiful words I dont know why some people worship this guy. All he says and writes is beautiful nonsense. Anyone capable of minimal reasoning can see it. The best thing socialist can do is distance themselves from this joke.

[grondilu]

That's clearly an insufficient argument since you could get rid of 100% of crime by killing everyone.

And how the &$#^ are they going to get rid of property without committing property crime? And if property crime is okay, then there goes that reason for getting rid of it.

Indeed.  The thing is, in their society, a person like me would be considered as a criminal, for I would defend what I would consider to be the fruit of my labour.  I wouldn't let those damn hippies take what I've been working for.  Thus, they would have either to fight against me, and to do so they might need an organised force, either to let me live apart with other people who believe in property right.

[FreeMoney]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

Well, what about mutualism? Its socialism and anarchism, and I am finding it ok. I might not agree with everything, but at least it makes sense, its coherent and has realistic views. But Chomsky is just charlatanery. Apart from being cautivated by his beautiful words I dont know why some people worship this guy. All he says and writes is beautiful nonsense. Anyone capable of minimal reasoning can see it. The best thing socialist can do is distance themselves from this joke.

I don't think voluntary socialism is wrong or evil. It's only bad in the sense that it will really suck without a group of non-socialists to leach off of.

I can actually be a little more positive about socialism I guess. My family is completely socialistic. It works well because each of us likes the others about as much as we like ourselves. Also we are in very close open communication all the time, so we can allocate resources pretty well without prices.

So the next step toward large scale socialism is polygamy.

I would be much less baffled by anarcho-socialists if they simply said "In a society where force is not tolerated at all socialism will arise" then I would want to hear why they thought that, what the voluntary transition to it would be, etc. But when they say things like "Property is theft" it just makes no sense. Property is theft... so if I get some propery... you are going to take it?

[FreeMoney]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

Well, what about mutualism? Its socialism and anarchism, and I am finding it ok. I might not agree with everything, but at least it makes sense, its coherent and has realistic views. But Chomsky is just charlatanery. Apart from being cautivated by his beautiful words I dont know why some people worship this guy. All he says and writes is beautiful nonsense. Anyone capable of minimal reasoning can see it. The best thing socialist can do is distance themselves from this joke.

It is worse than that though. If you make something and they take it now they are breaking their rule of not possessing things. It is just straight contradictory.

If they answer that they'll just let you be, then it's really clear to me that people will chose to have some things and give some things, and that's capitalism*.

*not corporate fascistic government sponsored capitalism, but simply the having of capital that you created or traded for.

[grondilu]

http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/103809/hippie-infestation

just kidding, ok

Hippies are annoying, but harmless people.

[hugolp]

It is worse than that though. If you make something and they take it now they are breaking their rule of not possessing things. It is just straight contradictory.

If they answer that they'll just let you be, then it's really clear to me that people will chose to have some things and give some things, and that's capitalism*.

*not corporate fascistic government sponsored capitalism, but simply the having of capital that you created or traded for.

It gets to a point where the lines between socialism and capitalism gets diluted.

Mutualists define capitalism from a historic (with marxian influence) perspective. Therefore capitalism is what happened in Europe after the industrial revolution. So basically for the mutualists capitalism means state capitalism or corporate capitalism.

Mutualism is defined as free market anticapitalism or free market socialism. I really dont care what you define yourself, as long as you defend some kind of free market with some kind of realistic property system. Mutualist in reality dont defend strict property but more of a exclusive use system. They defend that a property becomes unowned if the owner has not used for a long time, as opposed to anarcho-capitalist that are more strict with property.

Take all this with a grain of salt since I have just started looking into mutualism.

[grondilu]

They defend that a property becomes unowned if the owner has not used for a long time, as opposed to anarcho-capitalist that are more strict with property.

If someone has not used something for a long time, it might be because he doesn't need it anymore.

In that case, one could probably buy this thing for a relatively low price, instead of just stealing it.

Moreover, it's not because someone hasn't been using something for a long time, that he doesn't have any intention to do so in the future.  You're not in his head, and you don't know his investment strategies.  Again, instead of claiming this thing is not his property anymore, you should offer a price to buy it.  If you were right by assuming that he doesn't need it, then the price will be low.

[hugolp]

If someone has not used something for a long time, it might be because he doesn't need it anymore.

In that case, one could probably buy this thing for a relatively low price, instead of just stealing it.

Moreover, it's not because someone hasn't been using something for a long time, that he doesn't have any intention to do so in the future.  You're not in his head, and you don't know his investment strategies.  Again, instead of claiming this thing is not his property anymore, you should offer a price to buy it.  If you were right by assuming that he doesn't need it, then the price will be low.

I did not say that they are right, its just what I got from the little I have read about mutualism.

But saying that since someone does not need something he/she is going to sell it cheap its a stretch. Moreover the mutualists really dont have problem with little owners. What mutualists mainly have problem and strongly denounce is the property acquired through unjust means, for example property acquired using aggressive force or government subsidies or favors. They claim that the big parts of land that are now unused are due to the government interference and not due to a free market process. I happen to agree with this last part, and I like the strong stance on unjust acquired land. I think that the rest of the market anarchists schools and even minarchists should denounce this issue more.

Again, my understanding of mutualism is still superficial so my opinions could not be exactly accurate.

[FreeMoney]

It gets to a point where the lines between socialism and capitalism gets diluted.

Mutualists define capitalism from a historic (with marxian influence) perspective. Therefore capitalism is what happened in Europe after the industrial revolution. So basically for the mutualists capitalism means state capitalism or corporate capitalism.

If I build things and give some of them away that doesn't make it part socialism and part capitalism. I decide what to do with all of my property, giving it away is one of my uses for it. Maybe the word "capitalism" has to go, but for whatever reason it just means free market capitalism to me. It seems really obvious that a little bit of freedom doesn't make you free and a little bit of capitalism isn't capitalism. But if most people are using a word differently then I can change, as long as it's consistent.

Mutualist in reality dont defend strict property but more of a exclusive use system. They defend that a property becomes unowned if the owner has not used for a long time, as opposed to anarcho-capitalist that are more strict with property.

Take all this with a grain of salt since I have just started looking into mutualism.

There isn't some perfect platonic form of property and there will obviously be legitimate disputes. The question is how they will be resolved. If some group of people want to pick some list of arbitrary lengths of time for various items to lose their property-ness I think they'll do badly, but they can try it out and see. Long story short whatever people agree to is fine, if they don't agree they don't have to associate.

[Anonymous]

The entire world has become a series of slave plantations with each region having its own masters and slaves. There is no point moving elsewhere because that just swaps one master for another. Seasteading ftw.

[hugolp]

If I build things and give some of them away that doesn't make it part socialism and part capitalism. I decide what to do with all of my property, giving it away is one of my uses for it. Maybe the word "capitalism" has to go, but for whatever reason it just means free market capitalism to me. It seems really obvious that a little bit of freedom doesn't make you free and a little bit of capitalism isn't capitalism. But if most people are using a word differently then I can change, as long as it's consistent.

Yeah. Socialism in reality or at least for academic socialists (or whatever) is defined as a system of values where equality is the base and basic needs are covered for everyone (including food, shelter, etc...). How this is achieved is not defined, so its basically a set of beautiful promises (which is very useful from a marketing point of view, but not very realistic). Then there are different theories on how to get there. Mutualists just happen to think that the free market is the best way to achieve this ends. Again, all this comes from my little understanding of the subject, but I think I got it right.

So you see, if mutualists want a free market because that way they can achieve their socialistic ends and an-caps want a free market because they value it as the best way of living or the most moral or whatever... then they both defend the same, just with different objectives (maybe, because an an-cap can personally value equality as a favorable outcome). This is why I am telling you the line between capitalism and socialism gets blurred. Certainly mutualists will favour cooperatives and local commerce, while an-caps (maybe) will favour whatever its more efficient, but at the end they both accept playing in a free market.

The other socialist anarchists dont make sense at all to me. It seems just like nonsense with totally unrealistic views of the world, specially the economy. The anarcho-communist or anarcho-syndicalist want to impose a monetary system based on the hour standard (the hour as in time) but they say its not a monetary standard, and then they want to stablish a market to exchange the goods based on this hour standard, but saying that its not a market... And then you have the primitivists that want to stop using technology... I am finding mutualism ok, but it goes downhill very quickly from there.

There isn't some perfect platonic form of property and there will obviously be legitimate disputes. The question is how they will be resolved. If some group of people want to pick some list of arbitrary lengths of time for various items to lose their property-ness I think they'll do badly, but they can try it out and see. Long story short whatever people agree to is fine, if they don't agree they don't have to associate.

Yes. Its a dangerous line to define the validity of property in subjective terms.

[hugolp]

The entire world has become a series of slave plantations with each region having its own masters and slaves. There is no point moving elsewhere because that just swaps one master for another. Seasteading ftw.

I have hope to set up some sort of libertarian city-state in some place in Africa. There was a project to do exactly this in Madagascar. Some libertarian economists had talked with the president there to set up some special charter in some place to start a libertarian city (similar idea to Hong Kong). The key is that with a small tariff for the host country, it would be very profitable for them because all the activity the city would generate, and would be also very advantageous for the citizens that moved there since they could govern themselves and pay a very small tax only. The Madagascar president had accepted this and they were negotiating the terms, when there was a revolution. I wish I had the link were I read this.

If something like this actually happened I think that there is a big chance that a libertarian society could expand around Africa. Because the city would thrive and surely other people would copy the initiative, also the natives would copy the structure and could be influenced and educated, etc...

If something like this is stablished seriously I would go live there.

[Babylon]

Chomsky the "anarchist" that constantly demands bigger government. What a joke.

I am discovering now a lot of really good left-liberatarian philosophers. Why do people focus on this guy? He is a joke. For example, he demands higher taxes on the rich while at the same time he is rich and has his money in a fiscal paradise to avoid paying taxes... He is very good with linguistics and he uses it as a charlatan.

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

So he makes something and doesn't give it to me.  um, so?  Why should he be punished for that?  It's his thing, he made it.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it is ridiculous.  Anarcho Capitalism is not possible, it has never existed and the closest society has ever come to it (Somalia) is a really awful place to live by all accounts.  Anarcho-Socialism meanwhile has existed on several occasions, admittedly it was always militarially crushed by authoritarian socialism, but that is not an inherent flaw in the system, it's just that the Anarchists picked the wrong allies.  Black Ukraine and the Anarchist regions of Spain were pretty nice places to live by all accounts too.

[Babylon]

"Anarcho-socialism" is ridiculous. What are you going to do if someone makes something and doesn't give it you? Uh, I guess we'll need a group of people to administer punishments....

I am SO looking forward to see an anarcho-socialist answer this question...

Edit:  there is obviously an answer in the anarchism FAQ :
<<
I.5.8 What about crime?

For anarchists, "crime" can best be described as anti-social acts, or behaviour which harms someone else or which invades their personal space. Anarchists argue that the root cause for crime is not some perversity of human nature or "original sin," but is due to the type of society by which people are moulded. For example, anarchists point out that by eliminating private property, crime could be reduced by about 90 percent, since about 90 percent of crime is currently motivated by evils stemming from private property such as poverty, homelessness, unemployment, and alienation. Moreover, by adopting anarchist methods of non-authoritarian child rearing and education, most of the remaining crimes could also be eliminated, because they are largely due to the anti-social, perverse, and cruel "secondary drives" that develop because of authoritarian, pleasure-negative child-rearing practices (See section J.6 -- "What methods of child rearing do anarchists advocate?")
>>

http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionI5#seci58

Personnaly, I'm not convinced.

That's a problem for Anarchists of any stripe.  Moreso for An-caps than An-socs in my opinion since An-soss usually assume crime will be handled by the community while an-caps usually believe the community is a form of government and that crime should be handled by private security companies (which, for some reason, are NOT a form of government)