Bitcoin Forum
December 17, 2017, 02:57:01 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?  (Read 15684 times)
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 04, 2013, 10:48:17 PM
 #261

I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.


Are anarchism and collectivism exclusive?
My understanding of collectivism is simply that people work together, depend on each other, help each other, trade, interact, cooperate, etc.
My understanding of anarchy is that there is no use for a perpetual governing body.
Not that I see myself as any of these -isms, so I welcome learning if your understandings of these terms are different.  It seems there may be many definitions of the labels you are using.

I don't know that Bitcoin is in any way subversive in and of itself.   It seems more of a backstop that provides economic resilience in case of the failure of that which all too-big-to-fail failures are aggregated, fiat currencies.  Getting it to a point of full utility in advance of any such failure is a collectivist endeavor by its very nature so perhaps it would be surprising to find non-collectivist subversives in abundance in this forum, would it not?

More likely I imagine that the mission you maintain as your own (ending economies) will not ever be complete, and thus Bitcoin will not become obsoleted, but I can't see tomorrow, much less such a distant future.  It would seem a de-evolution to stop collecting ourselves into cooperative groups, but to each their own.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 04, 2013, 11:53:09 PM
 #262

I am looking for anarchists in this forum. But I met hero collectivists who are enthusiastic to interact and doing business with unknown people in the globalized hypercollectiv. As for me, I view Bitcoin as a subversive tool to end the state and with it the economy (homo oeconomicus). As soon as the mission is accomplished, Bitcoin will be obsolet.


Are anarchism and collectivism exclusive?
My understanding of collectivism is simply that people work together, depend on each other, help each other, trade, interact, cooperate, etc.
My understanding of anarchy is that there is no use for a perpetual governing body.
Not that I see myself as any of these -isms, so I welcome learning if your understandings of these terms are different.  It seems there may be many definitions of the labels you are using.

I don't know that Bitcoin is in any way subversive in and of itself.   It seems more of a backstop that provides economic resilience in case of the failure of that which all too-big-to-fail failures are aggregated, fiat currencies.  Getting it to a point of full utility in advance of any such failure is a collectivist endeavor by its very nature so perhaps it would be surprising to find non-collectivist subversives in abundance in this forum, would it not?

More likely I imagine that the mission you maintain as your own (ending economies) will not ever be complete, and thus Bitcoin will not become obsoleted, but I can't see tomorrow, much less such a distant future.  It would seem a de-evolution to stop collecting ourselves into cooperative groups, but to each their own.

Generally collectivist refers to those who view everything as common property. Your view above, cooperation, is more along the lines of voluntaryism. Other than that I largely agree with your conclusions here.

Except one thing. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is potentially subversive, simply because it is nearly impossible to be centrally controlled.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 04:04:55 AM
 #263


Generally collectivist refers to those who view everything as common property. Your view above, cooperation, is more along the lines of voluntaryism. Other than that I largely agree with your conclusions here.

Except one thing. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is potentially subversive, simply because it is nearly impossible to be centrally controlled.

Thank you for sharing your understanding of these terms.  I would be more likely to use the word "communist", or "socialist" society to describe common property social systems, and to use "collectivist" to refer to group decision making and social cohesion irrespective of property rights, though I respect that collectivism may engender the former (or not).  For example, I would view Japan (especially the older generation) a collectivist but not communist and only somewhat socialist society.

My view of Bitcoin is also more like a group of philosophically and technically savvy vanguard taking steps to provide a more resilient alternative for commercial interactions more suitable to the digital age.  It does not seem any more overtly political than something like twitter or Facebook, which could certainly be used for subversive activities but are by no means dedicated toward it beyond the individual actions of those that employ the technology, so I agree that it has that potential.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 04:12:23 AM
 #264


Generally collectivist refers to those who view everything as common property. Your view above, cooperation, is more along the lines of voluntaryism. Other than that I largely agree with your conclusions here.

Except one thing. The decentralized nature of Bitcoin is potentially subversive, simply because it is nearly impossible to be centrally controlled.

Thank you for sharing your understanding of these terms.  I would be more likely to use the word "communist", or "socialist" society to describe common property social systems, and to use "collectivist" to refer to group decision making and social cohesion irrespective of property rights, though I respect that collectivism may engender the former (or not).  For example, I would view Japan (especially the older generation) a collectivist but not communist and only somewhat socialist society.

My view of Bitcoin is also more like a group of philosophically and technically savvy vanguard taking steps to provide a more resilient alternative for commercial interactions more suitable to the digital age.  It does not seem any more overtly political than something like twitter or Facebook, which could certainly be used for subversive activities but are by no means dedicated toward it beyond the individual actions of those that employ the technology, so I agree that it has that potential.

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.

Empires are rarely conquered from without or fall to revolution. They eat themselves.

As to the term collectivism, my first exposure to it was in the writings of Ayn Rand, and later, Murray Rothbard. Both used it as a generic term for socialist/communist "people's republics" and their ilk. I think your definition is of some utility as well, as I've long liked the idea of a capitalist commune. Again, something I'll go into in detail after I get moved. I'm kinda lurking on the forum between moving heavy shit right now Smiley Probably the computer will go in the box tomorrow morning, so if you don't get a reply from me on anything for a couple weeks, I'm not ignoring anybody. Just moving 2200 miles.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 04:25:32 AM
 #265

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.
 

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
hawkeye
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 364



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 08:12:03 AM
 #266

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.
 

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

But that (USSR) is basically because people had become so dependent on the state.  Which btw, is what is starting to happen in the West.   It's a scary pattern.  More and more people becoming dependent on the state until the state buckles under the weight, then you have all these helpless people with no-one to look after them.

That's why we are saying now, let's start preparing for the end of the state NOW.  If we can reduce as many people's dependence on it as possible then when it gets to the point where it is ultimately dissolved, hopefully there won't be too many helpless people and there'll be enough free market independent people and capital that we won't have a great disaster.

It's time to put an end to these risky situations where you have a state which encourages dependence on it and then eventually collapses leading to all kinds of calamity.  The way to get out of this cycle is to work towards the end of the state as a concept.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 09:06:07 AM
 #267


Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.


You even cannot spell the name of the most famous figure of the entire history of philosophy.

Quote

First, are you a German speaker?  Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.


Uhuuuu. Yes, Swiss German spoken and therefore my English language is loaded with some weakness. But you never heard about autarky/autarkic/autarkical? How is that possible not to find it with google? Am I really discussing with somebody who didn't hear anyting about autarky? That explains a lot.

Quote
Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane.  I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim.  Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.

I see, you do know really nothing about anarchy and its opposite: the patriarchy. Collectivism/Patriarchy has always been a complicity between state and church (militarism and religion). Without any knowledge of the patriarchy and its  historical genesis, you will never realise what anarchy is (and always has been). Zero chance. For citizens without any knowlege in anarchy and patriarchy, I can recommend to read here:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html


Quote

The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts.  You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.

Completely wrong. All empires did expand and grow rampant, whitout any fiat.
You are story telling on the basic of ahistoric science fiction. The non-business-doing, non-patriarchal, anarchistic communities do not grow and expand, because they are self-sufficient and autarkic. No surpluses are produced, as it is the case in capitalism/collectivism, where the surplus is demanded and forced by the state/church.


Quote

You seem to have more in common, ideologically,  with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.

Indeed, with your ronpaulian pseudo-anarchism I do have nothing in common. It represents nationalism and christianism, the most monstrous hypercollective ever, regardless if he may be less evil than the Bushs and Obamas. On the opposite, I am a representative of the Nature, while you are a representative of a collectivist organisation of economic destruction of the Planet.


Quote
I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here.  Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy.  I really don't think you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?

Yes, very difficult to find real anarchists. If Bitcoin, cryptography and other subversive tools do not speed up the end of collectivism/capitalism/economism, it will end in itself, as all societies did in human history.
 
That's the difference between never growing/expanding anarchistic communities on one side, and growing patriarchal expanding/growing/business doing societies and empires (mafia) on the other (your) side. „They eat themselves.“ (quote: @Biomech)



Quote

First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.  
He is wise enough  to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.  

This is a shitty (to speak in your language) statement of somebody who impressively demonstrated, that he has no knowlegde about history, patriarchy and anarchy. So, the statement is worthless.


Quote
You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do.  You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.

I knew it: as a collectivist by heart and soul, you think you are speaking not only for yourself, but also for 'most uf us'. Thanks for outing.

Best regards
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 12:20:12 PM
 #268


Zarathrusta; however, has displayed that he doesn't even know what an economy is, much less what the words "capitalism", "capital", "business" or "property" mean.


You even cannot spell the name of the most famous figure of the entire history of philosophy.


I'm lucky to be able to spell anything correctly.  That has zero bearing on my accuracy.

Quote

Quote

First, are you a German speaker?  Because I don't know of any English definition of "autark" that would make any sense in this context, and even a google search sheds no light.


Uhuuuu. Yes, Swiss German spoken and therefore my English language is loaded with some weakness. But you never heard about autarky/autarkic/autarkical? How is that possible not to find it with google? Am I really discussing with somebody who didn't hear anyting about autarky? That explains a lot.


Autarky is a german word.  It's meaning in English is "self-sufficient", but considering that you regularly used both terms, in English, together to describe your ideal community, I was curious if it had some othermeaning for which I am unaware.  Otherwise you are fond of redundancy, which would imply that you were quite young.

Quote

Quote
Second, the above excerpt just sounds insane.  I've never had any interaction with anything that resembles a church mafia (although the state mafia is hard to avoid) and your claim that (I assume) traditional marriage was "for the purpose of doing business and paying protection money" is far from a fact, and you fail to provide any support for the claim.  Your calim is, therefore, quite literally baseless.

I see, you do know really nothing about anarchy and its opposite: the patriarchy. Collectivism/Patriarchy has always been a complicity between state and church (militarism and religion). Without any knowledge of the patriarchy and its  historical genesis, you will never realise what anarchy is (and always has been). Zero chance. For citizens without any knowlege in anarchy and patriarchy, I can recommend to read here:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

Heh.  Girls and their ideas. 

http://www.sinfest.net/archive_page.php?comicID=4059

Quote


Quote

The problem of unsustainable growth that you refer to has much more to do with the effects of fiat money and fractional reserve lending, further juiced by the past 150 years or so of the industrial oil age, than it does have to do with any actual fault with capitalism or even traditional marriage contracts.  You have identified a longstanding problem of the modern world and completely misinterpreted the underlying causes.

Completely wrong. All empires did expand and grow rampant, whitout any fiat.
You are story telling on the basic of ahistoric science fiction. The non-business-doing, non-patriarchal, anarchistic communities do not grow and expand, because they are self-sufficient and autarkic. No surpluses are produced, as it is the case in capitalism/collectivism, where the surplus is demanded and forced by the state/church.
You really don't have a supporting argument here, do you?
Quote
Quote

You seem to have more in common, ideologically,  with a communist hippie commune than you do with any flavor of 'anarchism' for which I am aware.

Indeed, with your ronpaulian pseudo-anarchism I do have nothing in common. It represents nationalism and christianism, the most monstrous hypercollective ever, regardless if he may be less evil than the Bushs and Obamas. On the opposite, I am a representative of the Nature, while you are a representative of a collectivist organisation of economic destruction of the Planet.

Okay.
Quote
Quote
I don't think you're going to have much luck finding fellow travelers here.  Bitcoin literally has zero chance of ending the economy.  I really don't think you know what the word means.  Is English your first language?

Yes, very difficult to find real anarchists. If Bitcoin, cryptography and other subversive tools do not speed up the end of collectivism/capitalism/economism, it will end in itself, as all societies did in human history.
 
That's the difference between never growing/expanding anarchistic communities on one side, and growing patriarchal expanding/growing/business doing societies and empires (mafia) on the other (your) side. „They eat themselves.“ (quote: @Biomech)

Indeed, they do 'eat themselves'.  Eventually.  Neither of us are likely to live to see that day, however.  And if you do, you won't really enjoy the fall.  Be careful what you wish for; as someone else has already noted, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself (after decades of "eating itself") and during the 90's the average life expectancy of a Russian male fell by 2 decades.  Said another way, a whole lot of people died, and a whole lot more people suffered for a long time.  The most likely to prosper either had huge families with access to arable land for which to grow food for their extended families, had longstanding ties in the mafia or other criminal trade organizations or both.  The Swiss, quite literally, are too numerous in this modern age to be able to grow enough food to feed their own population.  The Russians could do it, and the US might still be able to do it; but nearly all of Europe will not be able to do it.  Maybe the Greeks and Spanish.  If what you think you want comes to pass, many of you will resort to cannibalism before you get to your stable matriarchy.


Quote
Quote

First off, I've read it before, and he is somewhat full of shit, although not completely.  
He is wise enough  to 'condition' his statements to apply to the modern state of things.  

This is a shitty (to speak in your language) statement of somebody who impressively demonstrated, that he has no knowlegde about history, patriarchy and anarchy. So, the statement is worthless.


Quote
You should be very careful in this forum doing what you seem to be trying to do.  You will find that you are not the smartest guy in the room, if you ever were, and most of us cannot be bullshitted.

I knew it: as a collectivist by heart and soul, you think you are speaking not only for yourself, but also for 'most uf us'. Thanks for outing.

Best regards

Says the matriarchial anarchist looking for others like herself!

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 01:45:53 PM
 #269

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.
 

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

But that (USSR) is basically because people had become so dependent on the state.  Which btw, is what is starting to happen in the West.   It's a scary pattern.  More and more people becoming dependent on the state until the state buckles under the weight, then you have all these helpless people with no-one to look after them.

That's why we are saying now, let's start preparing for the end of the state NOW.  If we can reduce as many people's dependence on it as possible then when it gets to the point where it is ultimately dissolved, hopefully there won't be too many helpless people and there'll be enough free market independent people and capital that we won't have a great disaster.

It's time to put an end to these risky situations where you have a state which encourages dependence on it and then eventually collapses leading to all kinds of calamity.  The way to get out of this cycle is to work towards the end of the state as a concept.

It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.

IF bitcoin achieves a notable measure of success... then by the mechanism you describe above (reducing dependence, et al) we may also serve to AVOID the collapse of the state by lessening its burden, not just prepare for it.  For myself, that would be a very acceptable outcome, and even preferable.  I don't carry any ideal political agenda of what makes for a perfect society, but I would be very happy to discover myself living in a better one, and Bitcoin is hopefully one very small step toward effecting that.  By increasing personal liberty, entering the marketplace of monetary choice with a viable offering suitable for our new world, and by playing well with others.

So by succeeding with Bitcoin, we are not (necessarily) deconstructing the state, but perhaps increasing the resilience of our society and its economy, which may have the effect of saving the state as much as deconstructing it (for example, by allowing it find a more manageable size).  Whether this happens or not is far outside the scope of influence we are likely to have, but either way, Bitcoin provides many social goods.

Consider the example of the USA, it tends to become more like the things that challenge it.  When Communism is its big threat, it adopts more communism; when terrorism is the threat, it adopts more terrorism.  So if personal liberty is ever perceived as such a threat, perhaps it will simply adopt more liberty?  We can not predict the outcome, but our influence on it seems very positive.

Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 01:49:17 PM
 #270


Indeed, they do 'eat themselves'.  Eventually.  Neither of us are likely to live to see that day, however.  And if you do, you won't really enjoy the fall.  Be careful what you wish for; as someone else has already noted, the Soviet Union collapsed upon itself (after decades of "eating itself") and during the 90's the average life expectancy of a Russian male fell by 2 decades.  Said another way, a whole lot of people died, and a whole lot more people suffered for a long time.  The most likely to prosper either had huge families with access to arable land for which to grow food for their extended families, had longstanding ties in the mafia or other criminal trade organizations or both.  The Swiss, quite literally, are too numerous in this modern age to be able to grow enough food to feed their own population.  The Russians could do it, ...


Oh really? Thanks for these brand new informations. I have a house in Russia and relatives.


Quote

Says the matriarchial anarchist looking for others like herself!

You even can not read. You have no idea of Patriarchy and Anarchy. There has never been such a thing as a matriarchy. That's feminist science fiction. Matrilineal communities were anarchic, but never archic. It makes no sense to talk about things of which you have no idea. Thanks in advance.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:17:57 PM
 #271


It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.


Hi NewLiberty

My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it:

„There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“

That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel.


The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount.  They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't.
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:34:00 PM
 #272

Noted.

I am looking at it from the agorist viewpoint. Anything that is difficult for the government to control, yet popular, draws a lot of their resources. Something as difficult as Bitcoin, should it go mainstream, will tie their regulators in knots for decades. Anything that clogs the system is good for those who want it to fail. Exploit the bastards any chance you get. I'm even strategically in favor of using their various welfare programs (though it leaves a bad taste in my mouth) as a means of guerilla market strategy. ANYTHING that clogs their system up.
 

No such grandiose goals here.  Such a massive failure is not an experience I would much enjoy.  I take my cue on that from those who have been through the USSR dissolution.  Perhaps I'm too optimistic as I'd rather hope for the best and prepare for the worst.

But that (USSR) is basically because people had become so dependent on the state.  Which btw, is what is starting to happen in the West.   It's a scary pattern.  More and more people becoming dependent on the state until the state buckles under the weight, then you have all these helpless people with no-one to look after them.

That's why we are saying now, let's start preparing for the end of the state NOW.  If we can reduce as many people's dependence on it as possible then when it gets to the point where it is ultimately dissolved, hopefully there won't be too many helpless people and there'll be enough free market independent people and capital that we won't have a great disaster.

It's time to put an end to these risky situations where you have a state which encourages dependence on it and then eventually collapses leading to all kinds of calamity.  The way to get out of this cycle is to work towards the end of the state as a concept.

It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.

IF bitcoin achieves a notable measure of success... then by the mechanism you describe above (reducing dependence, et al) we may also serve to AVOID the collapse of the state by lessening its burden, not just prepare for it.  For myself, that would be a very acceptable outcome, and even preferable.  I don't carry any ideal political agenda of what makes for a perfect society, but I would be very happy to discover myself living in a better one, and Bitcoin is hopefully one very small step toward effecting that.  By increasing personal liberty, entering the marketplace of monetary choice with a viable offering suitable for our new world, and by playing well with others.

So by succeeding with Bitcoin, we are not (necessarily) deconstructing the state, but perhaps increasing the resilience of our society and its economy, which may have the effect of saving the state as much as deconstructing it (for example, by allowing it find a more manageable size).  Whether this happens or not is far outside the scope of influence we are likely to have, but either way, Bitcoin provides many social goods.

Consider the example of the USA, it tends to become more like the things that challenge it.  When Communism is its big threat, it adopts more communism; when terrorism is the threat, it adopts more terrorism.  So if personal liberty is ever perceived as such a threat, perhaps it will simply adopt more liberty?  We can not predict the outcome, but our influence on it seems very positive.

Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.

Hey, I'm still here for a minute Smiley

Anyway, yes that is possible. And yes, I have thought of it. It's a bit beyond the scope of what I have posted.

I cannot recall who said this, but it was one of the wiser abolitionists right around the time of the War Between the States. He said that slavery would likely end in increments, but that the abolitionist must at all times call for full, immediate abolition or be compromised beyond repair. That's a paraphrase, the man in question was more eloquent. This is more or less where I stand. I am a radical even in my own circle. This doesn't mean I would turn down incremental improvements in liberty. Quite the contrary I would applaud them while pointing out how much further we need to go. The agorist goal is to deconstruct the state piecemeal in such a way as to render it redundant, insignificant, and ultimately extinct due to no longer even being PERCEIVED as necessary. A truth that even the die hard statist will acknowledge is that states do not EVER produce anything. There's is the power to confiscate, redistribute, and destroy. Mao was correct when he said that all political power comes from the barrel of a gun.

Money is indeed only one factor. But it's a very large one. If it gets to the point where merchants will only accept a limited currency or a few of 'em (ex. Gold and Bitcoin/hypothetical other) then government becomes restrained in what it does by the very fact that the printing press and it's Keynesian policies are no longer relevant. No matter how draconian a government is, it still works with the consent or apathy of the producers. When they cease to be apathetic and withdraw consent, the government collapses.

Anarchism, like all social theories, is constantly evolving. I am a rather modern anarchist. I don't want to go back to the trees like some of them do, nor do I want society to devolve into warring tribes. What I, and others like me, want is to change the focus of the public from building bigger empires to building better humans. Every man who is able to do two things is a defacto threat to rulership that cannot be eradicated without them revealing their true nature.

1. Stand alone (produce what they need to survive)

2. Trade with others. (produce more than they need, exchange it for goods they want.)

That, then, is the ultimate goal of the individualist. Individualism is by necessity both anarchic and cooperative. Systems of polity based on these ideas preclude the governmental meme of a monopoly of violence over a given territory.

As you have already demonstrated a working mind, you can see that those two straightforward points are neither easy nor simple, but they are achievable. Past societies, regardless of Zarathrusta's (lack of) understanding of history, have achieved this. Voluntary cooperation ALWAYS produces better results than coerced cooperation. Even in the case of actual slavery, it was quickly noted by more civilized societies that the freeman working for a wage outproduced the slave by a significant amount. All humans try to profit by their endeavors, and any system that denies that will ultimately fail. Which is why I am not a socialist. I like a lot of the ideas behind socialism, and have incorporated those that make sense into my personal philosophy, but there is a core to it that doesn't work. A Vow of Poverty, more or less, that makes it impossible to maintain on a large scale. (I think it could work in small groups, but only  if there were an exit strategy for the disaffected and ambitious).

And to Zarathrusta, Patriarchy, regardless of feminist bullshit, means rule by FATHERS, and has been a quite successful paradigm in past societies (e.g. ancient Israel prior to Saul, The Bedouin, The Turks prior to the Ottoman Empire, The Cherokee (my people), and many others. Further, a society that produces no excess starves to death during bad times. We have a common word for such societies. Extinct.

The Feminists use the term Patriarchy in place of Paternalism (substitution for fathers) because they desire to (and have successfully) create a false dichotomy in which you look the wrong way while they are doing exactly what they pubicly decry. In debate, this logical fallacy is known as a red herring. It is very effective against the unprepared.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 02:38:16 PM
 #273


It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.


Hi NewLiberty

My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it:

„There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“

That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel.


The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount.  They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't.

No where did Von Mises say that the economy comes to a standstill. He in fact showed exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that such credit fueled booms are UNeconomic and eventually destroy the currency and credibility of what is being traded.

You also don't see the rainforest populations living to old age, building computers, overcoming famine and disease, or becoming anything greater than they are. As for them not trading?

Dude, check your premises. They trade with other tribes frequently.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:36:41 PM
 #274


It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.


Hi NewLiberty

My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter). The motor of doing business and creating surpluses is the state enforced tax (census) and its derivative, the interest on debt owed to creditors. Even Ludwig von Mises knew it:

„There is no means of avoiding the final collapse of a boom brought about by credit expansion. The alternative is only whether the crisis should come sooner as the result of voluntary abandonment of further credit expansion, or later as a final and total catastrophe of the currency system involved.“

That means: Even if all the debt is going to be replaced by assets, it will only be a crackup boom, but in the end the economy comes to a standstill, because the motor (debt and interest) is missing its fuel.


The stateless communities in the rain forests theoretically could have a barter economy, but in reality, they don't. A blood-community is not economically interacting with people from outside. And if, then in a very minimal amount.  They avoid doing business; there is simply no need for a self-sufficient community of doing business with strangers. Otherwise you would observe growing economies and growing 'capital' in the rain forests, but you don't.

No where did Von Mises say that the economy comes to a standstill. He in fact showed exactly the opposite. He was pointing out that such credit fueled booms are UNeconomic and eventually destroy the currency and credibility of what is being traded.

You also don't see the rainforest populations living to old age, building computers, overcoming famine and disease, or becoming anything greater than they are. As for them not trading?

Dude, check your premises. They trade with other tribes frequently.


Hey Biomech,

I quotet, what LvM said. And I wrote, what that means in reality (collapse and catastrophe = end of the production based on credit). And yes, the communities in the rainforests are not building computers. They are building nearly nothing, except that, what they really need. The reason why they have hundredfold less production than collectivist societies (in which everyone has 50 ore more energy slave aequivalents in tow), is because they are not forced to, by tax and interest on debt. There is no market in the rainforest. Self-sufficiency is self-sufficiency! (not to be confused with today's half-civilized communities)
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:41:02 PM
 #275

I really wish I hadn't got into this right now! I'm out of time. I leave tomorrow morning and there are a million and one things to be done. So I won't be replying anymore today, and probably won't be back for a couple of weeks. I love it when people make me think.

All of ya, go right on and keep pickin' at me while I'm gone. I'll be working on some stuff to post. Probably start a couple new threads, as this one is going everywhere.

Zarathrusta, I disagree severely with your analysis, though I do see where you're coming from now. I think the language barrier has been my problem. Your english is a bit confusing. At any rate, when I get back online, I'll do a bunch of catching up.

Cheers!

Kevin Biomech.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
Zarathustra
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:51:50 PM
 #276

I really wish I hadn't got into this right now! I'm out of time.

Uuhhh, out of time! Yes, you see the difference to the communities in the rainforests? They have plenty of time, because they are not busy! Grin

I leave tomorrow morning and there are a million and one things to be done. So I won't be replying anymore today, and probably won't be back for a couple of weeks. I love it when people make me think.

All of ya, go right on and keep pickin' at me while I'm gone. I'll be working on some stuff to post. Probably start a couple new threads, as this one is going everywhere.

Zarathrusta, I disagree severely with your analysis, though I do see where you're coming from now. I think the language barrier has been my problem. Your english is a bit confusing. At any rate, when I get back online, I'll do a bunch of catching up.

Cheers!

Kevin Biomech.


We can discuss in German, or French, no problem!
Cheers, good luck and good business! Wink
Malawi
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 224


One bitcoin to rule them all!


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 03:57:25 PM
 #277

I really wish I hadn't got into this right now! I'm out of time.

Uuhhh, out of time! Yes, you see the difference to the communities in the rainforests? They have plenty of time, because they are not busy! Grin



They still have to do stuff and cannot be two places at one time. They may not be busy, but they are not magical.

BitCoin is NOT a pyramid - it's a pagoda.
NewLiberty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1190


Gresham's Lawyer


View Profile WWW
June 05, 2013, 04:07:25 PM
 #278

I really wish I hadn't got into this right now! I'm out of time.

Uuhhh, out of time! Yes, you see the difference to the communities in the rainforests? They have plenty of time, because they are not busy! Grin


They still have to do stuff and cannot be two places at one time. They may not be busy, but they are not magical.

Yes, though certainly Zarathustra was jesting, I suspect the day is just as long for them as it is for us. Smiley
On the broader point, being less busy/productive/active does not seem as much a virtue as might be their own happiness. 
For my own happiness, I enjoy doing things and not being idle so Biomech's activity is more attractive than the unbusy foresters, though I respect their choice and the choice of any that would join them in that unbusiness.

FREE MONEY1 Bitcoin for Silver and Gold NewLibertyDollar.com and now BITCOIN SPECIE (silver 1 ozt) shows value by QR
Bulk premiums as low as .0012 BTC "BETTER, MORE COLLECTIBLE, AND CHEAPER THAN SILVER EAGLES" 1Free of Government
Biomech
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Anarchy is not chaos.


View Profile
June 05, 2013, 04:10:43 PM
 #279




We can discuss in German, or French, no problem!
Cheers, good luck and good business! Wink

I really wish I could. That's my problem, not yours. Just bear with me :p English is the only language I'm proficient in. I can make myself understood, verbally, in Mexican Spanish, but that's about it.

One last thing, though. As a much younger man, I spent a year homeless, mostly in the wilderness living a hunter/gatherer lifestyle. The circumstances that got me there are long, boring, and not the point. I did choose to do it deliberately, and I had a great deal of fun. In that I was not against a clock, I was not as busy as within human society. But I probably worked harder physically than any other time in my life. I don't regret doing it in the least, and am certain that I could do it again if the need arose, but the desire will not. It's not an ideal life by any means. Though it probably is a good experience for anyone at least once.

All of society is an artificial construct, and that is not in itself a bad thing. Just that the construct needs constant revision and pruning. I think that governance was necessary at one time. I also think we are CAPABLE of growing beyond it while not discarding the things that ARE good in the societal constructs.

And with that, I really must stop with the internet!

Thanks for the well wishes, and the same to you.

Buy Bitcoins with Paypal, Credit card, or other methods. Send me a PM or a text to 208-451-2665.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708



View Profile
June 05, 2013, 06:20:47 PM
 #280


It appears we are in agreement on most things, however I might diverge with you (and Zarathustra, and probably lots of others here) on what might not be an insignificant point.
(...)
Zarathustra does appear to have a point: that society is influenced by many factors, not just its money.  From someone on the sidelines, a little less labeling of people into broad categories might help that one find what is sought.


Hi NewLiberty

My point is that, as soon as the state is eliminated and private debt/money is replaced by assets (gold, gold 2.0 etc.), the economy will have lost its motor. A 'barter economy' is ahistoric science fiction. (read G. Dalton: Barter).

They were wrong and provablely so.  While it's true that every society that formed writing also developed commodity money systems, the development of money was always a concurrent development with the rise and growth of the barter economy.  Commodity money just made such barter arrangments more efficient and easier to negotiate.  Barter most certainly did exist in the past, and most certainly still exists pretty much everywhere today; most people don't recognize it as such.  Construction workers do it regularly, as they will oftern trade hours.  For example, a plumber might need his house repainted and the painter needs his toilet replaced.  The only money that moves is in the purchase of the paint and toilet from outside suppliers.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 »  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!