Bitcoin Forum
December 04, 2016, 02:02:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Your ideological evolution.  (Read 8648 times)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 02:00:35 AM
 #101

A market anarchist is simply an anti-monopolist when it comes to governance, violence, and dispute resolution.

An anarcho-capitalist is a market anarchist that understands economics. The term would also apply to entrepreneurs in a Stateless society.

Anarchy is a big tent. There's plenty of room for difference of opinion. Even the Non-Agression Principle can be interpreted and applied in different ways, especially if the definition of "property" varies.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

Open an exchange account at CampBX: options, lowest commissions, and best security
https://campbx.com/register.php?r=0Y7YxohTV0B
1480816955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816955
Reply with quote  #2

1480816955
Report to moderator
1480816955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816955
Reply with quote  #2

1480816955
Report to moderator
1480816955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816955
Reply with quote  #2

1480816955
Report to moderator
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480816955
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480816955

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480816955
Reply with quote  #2

1480816955
Report to moderator
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
June 26, 2011, 09:32:24 PM
 #102

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?
em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
June 26, 2011, 09:49:20 PM
 #103

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?

You're exactly right.  Anarcho-Syndicalism is perfectly permitted to exist within an Anarcho-Capitalist society, but not the other way around.  The anarcho-syndicalists don't even necessarily have to purchase the property in an anarcho-capitalist society provided that they legitimately homesteaded it or otherwise voluntarily obtained ownership of their commune.  But since "Anarcho-Capitialsim" is such a scary word to the uninitiated, I prefer to instead just say "Voluntaryism", since it has a much more positive connotation and doesn't specifically favor one particular economic arrangement over another, provided it is voluntary.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:06:11 PM
 #104

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

It's been due partly to interactions with Anarchists, the ones that were actually out there doing things, trying to reshape the world have been mostly AnSyn.  Creating Bitcoin being the notable exception (I think Satoshi is an AnCap, not certain about that) A lot of it has also been due to my interactions with bosses.  These guys are usually incompetent, and almost always petty tyrants of one sort or another, I can't be in favor of a system where they all own their own little feudal manors and we all bow down to them.  I can't imagine that the people would tolerate this.

Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:09:19 PM
 #105

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

Actually I used to identify as an Anarcho-Capitalist.  But since about 2 years, I have dropped that label.  Now I consider myself a "Pragmatic Agorist/Voluntaryist", since I no longer see capitalistic businesses or social arrangements as necessarily always the best.  I'm perfectly happy with many forms of Voluntary Communism or Syndicalism, provided there is no coercion and all relevant parties consent.

I'm curious about that since once of the arguments I read from Anarcho-Capitalists is that Anacho-Syndicalism could exist inside their society, but not the other way around. E.g. Under AC you just need to get a group of people interested, buy the right property and live inside your own commune. It could even trade with outsiders.  While if a group of capitalists did this in an AS society, then their production would necessarily have to be taxed and redistributed.

If that's true, isn't Anarchocapitalism the best of both worlds?

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
June 27, 2011, 07:38:51 PM
 #106

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

I appreciate this point of view and hope that there are more Anarchists that share it than one would infer from reading http://reddit.com/r/anarchism Smiley

I label myself a voluntaryist now, as both anarchist and capitalist have too much emotional baggage. I think that given an anarchist environment, many varied methods of meeting human demands will flourish. Perhaps one will be shown through practice to be vastly superior to all others and voluntarily adopted by a majority, but I doubt it will be the case as long as we have differing goals and values.

In a fairly short period of time I transitioned from a political apathist, to self identified liberal (valued social over economic freedom), to a minarchist (realizing that economic freedom was just important), to an anarchist (realizing that over a long enough period of time, governments cannot in theory or practice protect freedom).
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 08:05:33 PM
 #107

My parents were hard core liberal progressives.  I turned to libertarian capitalism as a teenager, due to reading a lot of science fiction.  After growing up and actually interacting with the real world this has evolved into libertarian socialism  (also known as Anarcho-Syndicalism)

I would be interested in hearing about your transition from AnCap to AnSyn. It's certain to be enlightening.

It's been due partly to interactions with Anarchists, the ones that were actually out there doing things, trying to reshape the world have been mostly AnSyn.  Creating Bitcoin being the notable exception (I think Satoshi is an AnCap, not certain about that) A lot of it has also been due to my interactions with bosses.  These guys are usually incompetent, and almost always petty tyrants of one sort or another, I can't be in favor of a system where they all own their own little feudal manors and we all bow down to them.  I can't imagine that the people would tolerate this.

TBH, Neither do I. That's why I'm not worried. Bosses can indeed be pricks. I expect market competition to do away with them just as any negative market factor.

I usually identify myself to non-anarchists as a Voluntarist, and AnCap to other anarchists. Voluntarist neatly escapes all that baggage BitterTea mentioned, and it's a lot harder to Co-opt.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
J180
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 122


View Profile
June 27, 2011, 11:20:16 PM
 #108

in an Anarchist society of any sort there is no central authority to tax and redistribute production, so the AnCaps would not be taxed and redistributed.

in an AnSyn society if people really wished to be exploited by a capitalist they would be free to do so, meanwhile in AnCap society the resources are all already "owned" so formation of a syndicalist commune is not really possible.

I don't expect society as a whole to be syndicalist or capitalist in nature,  I just hope or it to be Anarchist and allow the capitalists, syndicalists and other sorts to form their own smaler soceities within the larger framework.

I think your being unreasonable going from "resources are all already owned" to "forming a commune not possible". You would have to buy the land first indeed, but I don't think that deserves the title of 'impossible'. Land isn't very expensive, especially when a group of people put their money together. Even if you want to take over a pre-existing company, the employees would only need to save up for maybe 6 months or a year to buy it. If you contest that I'm willing to try the number crunching to work it out.

Other then that I don't think your society is that bad. I would argue that the 'capitalist' societies would end up being more efficient, and thus end up being predominate. But the beauty of this system is that we could agree on reaching it for different reasons (i.e. while disagreeing on how it would it turn out).

My main issue with AnSyn would be if the capitalist group didn't have private property, i.e that they would be invaded and taxed by the other communes. So your version is one which I have a lot more enthusiasm in.
Anonymous
Guest

June 27, 2011, 11:32:42 PM
 #109

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 27, 2011, 11:37:08 PM
 #110

I don't know how an Anarchist society isn't going to exist without a monopoly on force.

Too many negatives, Atlas. Could you de-tangle that?

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
smellyBobby
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 112


View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:15:15 AM
 #111

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I need a job!!!!

Justice Dragons: http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=16351.msg267881#msg267881

Help me buy deodorant!!! 17bmVSoD8QNBLaPDRAXkFdapBPdgA72YjB
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:17:13 AM
 #112

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.
Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 28, 2011, 05:32:53 PM
 #113

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 05:49:23 PM
 #114

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

It doesn't have to be monopoly force. It just has to keep the damn hippy squatters off my land. Wink

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
BitterTea
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 294



View Profile
June 28, 2011, 06:38:45 PM
 #115

I don't know how an Anarchist society is going to exist without a monopoly on force.

It can't.

You can not reduce people to computers. This is what an equalization of coercive force implies.

I think he's talking about socialist anarchism, where private property is not allowed.

A monopoly on force is not necessary or beneficial just like a monopoly on food is not necessary or beneficial.

here's where you are misunderstanding Socialist Anarchism.  It's an Anarchy, nothing is "not allowed"  private property just doesn't exist without a monopoly of force to protect it.  it's a philosophical difference, not a practical one.

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?
myrkul
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
June 28, 2011, 07:11:21 PM
 #116

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?

Which is what I said, but worded much more eloquently. +1.

BTC1MYRkuLv4XPBa6bGnYAronz55grPAGcxja
Need Dispute resolution? Public Key ID: 0x11D341CF
No person has the right to initiate force, threat of force, or fraud against another person or their property. VIM VI REPELLERE LICET
The Script
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
June 29, 2011, 08:41:59 AM
 #117

Sorry, that was worded poorly. Most of the socialist anarchists I've spoken with advocate the use of force in order to prevent ownership of private property, rather than say, just boycotting the property owner. Such use of force is akin to a state, from my point of view.

I can use my own hands in order to defend my property (means of production), or pay someone else to do it for me. It's only a monopoly on force if there is a single entity that may legitimately use force. Do you mean that as a property owner, I have a monopoly on force? If so, that seems like a rather self referential definition of property and monopoly, though I can see how it could seem to be state-like from your perspective.

Do you think that an individual has the right to use force in the defense of his possessions from others? What about property? What about both of those, but a group instead of an individual?

Which is what I said, but worded much more eloquently. +1.

I dunno, "hippy squatters" is hard to top.  Wink
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:29:00 AM
 #118

amorphous (but very concerned with freedom and justice and fairness) -> Libertarian (capital L) -> Green Party -> Anarchism (amorphous) -> Anarcho-Communist -> Autonomism -> Anarchism(amorphous)

Have a strong tendency towards mutualism or an open ended non-coercive society with weak property rights

Personally I have very strong egalitarian tendencies and would like to live and work with others that have strong egalitarian tendencies in a mixed communal/market/gift economy.

But i don't feel any need to force those views on others.
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:54:43 AM
 #119

Apolitical -> Libertarian -> Georgist Classic Liberal -> Spencer Heath -> Competitive jurisdictions advocate

I believe in a strong right to exit jurisdictions that are not favourable.

I still don't have an idea of what level of "debt" to people can be considered valid before exiting.

The US Guv taxes people 10 years after leaving. That is clearly not right.
But OTOH
Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?
- Open questions.

em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
July 01, 2011, 06:07:13 AM
 #120

Parents should have some claim on their children after bringing them up, but what claim is valid before children can make their move out?

I don't know if the parents have any claim at all on the children.  The parents made a concious decision when creating the child, but the child was not consulted about which parents he/she would be ruled by.  The child was not a contracting party, so he/she should be free to leave.

"We will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.

Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks, but pure P2P networks are holding their own."
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 »  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!