How evil is Bitcoin ?

[Babylon]

There's some obvious confusion here between personal property and private property.  Socialists are not opposed to personal property.  Even Authoritarian stalinist socialists are not opposed to personal property.  That is the things which you personally own and can personally hold and/or defend.  Socialists, especcially Anarchist socialists, are opposed to private property.  That is those things which you own only because the law says you own them, you cannot personally hold and defend them.  As soon as you start hiring other people to hold and defend your private property you have established a government and are acting against Anarchist principles.

your house is personal property,  a house that you rent to bring in income is private property.  Obviously you cannot personally defend both your own house and a rental property.

[bober182]

Bitcoin is not Anarcho-capitalist its more socialist as its based on the trust system. It's a start to show people that the days of bartering and gift economy can work again and there is no need for centralized banks. This is a start towards abolishing money in all forms towards a more Utopian Anarcho-communist society.

[hugolp]

Hopefully you guys are not trolls and are up for an honest debate.

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.

There has been more examples of anarcho-capitalism than Somalia. In fact, Somalia is not the best example of an anarcho-capitalist society. Also, about Somalia, their conditions have improved during their anarchist phase. Under anarchy Somalia has become the region with the cheapest telephone rates in all Africa, the one where agricultural and kettle production has grown faster, etc... You obviously are not going to turn a shithole into a paradise in some years. But the fact is that the conditions have improved.

I have also read about the anarcho-communist communities in Spain. First of all, they were short-lived, so conclusions about them should be taken with a grain of salt since nobody knows how they would have evolved. But you say they were "pretty nice places to live by all accounts"... but you dont talk how the political comites that were formed were regulating moral issues like sex and even alcohol drinking for their members. And they were strict about it (some of them, there were many types of communities). But again, the experiences are not very conclusive (for good or for bad) because they were short lived.

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)

Its the other way around. Its the anarcho-syndicalist or anarcho-communist that tend to be democratic.

There's some obvious confusion here between personal property and private property.  Socialists are not opposed to personal property.  Even Authoritarian stalinist socialists are not opposed to personal property.  That is the things which you personally own and can personally hold and/or defend.  Socialists, especcially Anarchist socialists, are opposed to private property.  That is those things which you own only because the law says you own them, you cannot personally hold and defend them.  As soon as you start hiring other people to hold and defend your private property you have established a government and are acting against Anarchist principles.

your house is personal property,  a house that you rent to bring in income is private property.  Obviously you cannot personally defend both your own house and a rental property.

This is a better definition of personal/private property than the traditional communist, but is still weak. What if you can not defend your house? What if you rent a room?

Bitcoin is not Anarcho-capitalist its more socialist as its based on the trust system.

mmmm, where does anarcho-capitalism opposes a trust system? Not only it does not oppose it, but anarcho-capitalism relies in a trust system.

It's a start to show people that the days of bartering and gift economy can work again and there is no need for centralized banks. This is a start towards abolishing money in all forms towards a more Utopian Anarcho-communist society.

Money appeared naturally from bartering. Why do you think it wont happen again? In fact, a system of money (or at least a free market money) is a system of barter. It just happens that people always barter their goods against one good, and for that reason that good receives the name of money. Its convinient, why do you think it wont happen again?

Also, ignoring that money does a lot of good for humans is not wise. Without money the coordination of production would be impossible and people would be much poorer. Specialization would not be possible and that means no modern science like medicine or physics.


Again, if you are trolls or dont care about honest debate dont bother answering.

[FreeMoney]

There's some obvious confusion here between personal property and private property.  Socialists are not opposed to personal property.  Even Authoritarian stalinist socialists are not opposed to personal property.  That is the things which you personally own and can personally hold and/or defend.  

There is not a well-defined difference. 

If I can get hold of someones toothbrush then they clearly could not defend it therefore it was private property. If they try to get it back with assistance from anyone this just secures my claim, so if I am bigger, I win.

OTOH, if a have big steel doors with 32bit codes and a completely automated factory then I can have huge amounts of capital as my legitamate personal property. But if you keep trespassers out of your garden by paying locals with vegetables then you have a government defending your capital?

I'm going to guess that Stalin was totally down with a distinction like this because he could at whim determine which was which in any case that concerned him. Making up false distinctions and backing them with force is evil.

your house is personal property,  a house that you rent to bring in income is private property.  Obviously you cannot personally defend both your own house and a rental property.

As a matter of fact the place I am living in is 100% both. It would be virtually impossible to defend the part lived in by the owner without defending the parts used for rental income. I'd like to know also how long the homeowner can be away before I can morally stop paying rent. He's actually been gone for 3 weeks and won't be back for another, does this somehow change our agreement?

As a general principle would you say that all the things a person legitimately owns have to be in the same physical location?

[FreeMoney]

Bitcoin is not Anarcho-capitalist its more socialist as its based on the trust system. It's a start to show people that the days of bartering and gift economy can work again and there is no need for centralized banks. This is a start towards abolishing money in all forms towards a more Utopian Anarcho-communist society.

Bitcoin is specifically designed so that users don't have to trust or even know each other so I don't know what you are meaning by that.

[joe]

In my opinion capitalism is the most natural law after anarchism.

When you agree that anything people find or create should be their property unless superseded by a contract or existing ownership, then capitalism necessarily follows.

If you leave off the last part and just say anything people find or create should be their property, you have anarchism: in essence, it is saying, whatever you have is yours until someone else takes it; then it is theirs.

[grondilu]

Bitcoin is not Anarcho-capitalist its more socialist as its based on the trust system. It's a start to show people that the days of bartering and gift economy can work again and there is no need for centralized banks. This is a start towards abolishing money in all forms towards a more Utopian Anarcho-communist society.

I think you are very wrong.  Bitcoin is certainly not a way to abolish money.  Rather, it is a ultra-modern form of money.  It is about as communist as gold can be.  And I doubt gold is a communist money.

Don't confuse capitalism with banking system.  Basically capitalism is the right of ownership.  Bitcoin is a money that is way more difficult to steal than other forms of money.  It is therefore not socialist.  At all.

[hugolp]

I think you are very wrong.  Bitcoin is certainly not a way to abolish money.  Rather, it is a ultra-modern form of money.  It is about as communist as gold can be.  And I doubt gold is a communist money.

Don't confuse capitalism with banking system.  Basically capitalism is the right of ownership.  Bitcoin is a money that is way more difficult to steal than other forms of money.  It is therefore not socialist.  At all.

Not all forms of socialism reject money. Remember socialism is a set of goals, not a set of policies (whether you think this goals are important or possible is another matter).

Btw, Rothbard convinced the communist party of the USA to include the gold standard in their program

[kiba]

I think you are very wrong.  Bitcoin is certainly not a way to abolish money.  Rather, it is a ultra-modern form of money.  It is about as communist as gold can be.  And I doubt gold is a communist money.

Don't confuse capitalism with banking system.  Basically capitalism is the right of ownership.  Bitcoin is a money that is way more difficult to steal than other forms of money.  It is therefore not socialist.  At all.

Not all forms of socialism reject money. Remember socialism is a set of goals, not a set of policies (whether you think this goals are important or possible is another matter).

I consider the goal of socialism to be incompatible with my individualist worldview.

I am not opposed to community, having social relations, charities, and things like that.

I'll organize a society of mutual friendship and mutual help as much as I'll organize venture for personal wealth.

[bober182]

Well I just don't like capitalism as it exploits people.
If there could be a system where you make all the fish you can store them in a community store house and with that you can take as much bread wine and salt as you want because you did your job.
If certain people try to beat the system and take more give non then the rest of the community will say your on your own no more fish for you unless you make your share of bread.
BitCoin shows that we don't need money in the sense of a piece of paper that some big man printed and decided the value but that we the people control it like a union should control a factory.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production.

[kiba]

Well I just don't like capitalism as it exploits people.
If there could be a system where you make all the fish you can store them in a community store house and with that you can take as much bread wine and salt as you want because you did your job.
If certain people try to beat the system and take more give non then the rest of the community will say your on your own no more fish for you unless you make your share of bread.
BitCoin shows that we don't need money in the sense of a piece of paper that some big man printed and decided the value but that we the people control it like a union should control a factory.

Communism is a sociopolitical movement that aims for a classless society structured upon communal ownership of the means of production.

Bitcoin is a free market currency, not controlled by some annoying union in a factory.

And I do not like other people telling me that some capitalist is exploiting my labor. Butt out.

[MoonShadow]

I am amused by this debate.  However well entertained I may be, there is no political ideology that reflects upon Bitcoin or vice versa.  There are likely to be some political structures that are encouraged, and other discouraged, by the widespread use of Bitcoin; but Bitcoin itself is neither good nor evil.  It is simply a modern tool of commerce.  The intent is not in it's design, but in it's users.

That said, any debate about the relative merits of ideologies is futile, as participants are (almost certainly) not using the same definitions.

And there is a difference between Capitalism (an economic ideology) and capitalism (an economic term that generally describes a set of economic laws operating in smooth conjuction without outside influences).  IMHO, Anarcho-Capitalism is as unlikely a long term possibility as is Anarcho-Socialism, and Anarcho-capitalism is just anarchy in it's natural state, and just as short lived.  I am not an anarchist of any flavor; because even though I can accept that a large minority of the population could thrive without any government beyond self-government and self-disipline, there will always be another minority of the population that craves and clamors for a perception of order in an otherwise (apparently) disorderly world.  In every case wherein anarchy became dominate, there were always those who would choose to take advantage of (or sow) disorder for personal gains, which would lead to the public clamoring for a more authoritarian government.  The case of anarchy leading to a peaceful, lasting social contract with limited governance is exceedingly rare.  So you young ones should temper your enthusiasm, for I have lived long enough to know that 'abolish and replace' of government is a risky endeavor.

[kiba]

for I have lived long enough to know that 'abolish and replace' of government is a risky endeavor.

Amen. The French Revolution. Why the French celebrate it again?

Not because the French did any sort of anarchy(They did not) but because it's a revolution that gone completely bunker.

[MoonShadow]

for I have lived long enough to know that 'abolish and replace' of government is a risky endeavor.

Amen. The French Revolution. (Why the French celebrate it again?)

That was one of the examples that I was thinking of.  In the modern world, the only definitive examples of limited government emerging out of anarchy that I can think of are the United States after the Constitution was ratified (i.e. the Articles of Confederation were as close to anarchy that any nation could have maintained, and the framers had already determined that the Articles would lead to an early break-up of the Union, which is why the Constitution was promoted to begin with) and the Swiss.

[MoonShadow]

Not because the French did any sort of anarchy(They did not)

Yes, there was anarchy; but it was a short lived, and particularly hostile, form of national anarchy.  Which led to France being taken over by a short dictator for a while.  We always think of the German Nazis as the worst example of collective madness, but the Germans still don't have anything on the French.

[kiba]

Not because the French did any sort of anarchy(They did not)

Yes, there was anarchy; but it was a short lived, and particularly hostile, form of national anarchy.  Which led to France being taken over by a short dictator for a while.  We always think of the German Nazis as the worst example of collective madness, but the Germans still don't have anything on the French.

Yes, the Nazis were terrifying as well. For that reason alone, I distrust democracies.

But Lord Acton said it best, "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The American were privileged to have George Washington, who gave up his power.

(For the record, I am heavily influenced by my history professor's lecture on the French revolution)

[bober182]

I distrust democracies

WHAT THE FUCK True democracy is one person one vote. I hope you mean representative democracy.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

nuff said

[kiba]

I distrust democracies

WHAT THE FUCK True democracy is one person one vote. I hope you mean representative democracy.

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities

nuff said

I do not trust them at all, or anybody, or even myself. That is why I am an anarchist.

[bober182]

Some anarchists (usually social anarchists) have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues. The Young Communist League, USA in particular refers to representative democracy as "bourgeois democracy," implying that they see direct democracy as "true democracy."

[kiba]

Some anarchists (usually social anarchists) have advocated forms of direct democracy as an alternative to the centralized state and capitalism; however, others (such as individualist anarchists) have criticized direct democracy and democracy in general for ignoring the rights of the minority, and instead have advocated a form of consensus decision-making. Libertarian Marxists, however, fully support direct democracy in the form of the proletarian republic and see majority rule and citizen participation as virtues. The Young Communist League, USA in particular refers to representative democracy as "bourgeois democracy," implying that they see direct democracy as "true democracy."

I also don't believe in consensus decision-making.

Rather, voluntarism is the driving principle of my life. I don't need your permission, but all I need not to do is not act out of violence or aggressions against others.