Bitcoin Forum
December 11, 2016, 04:30:09 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 8662 times)
blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 08:07:12 AM
 #121

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.

I agree that according to libertarian logic, what you are saying is correct.

One question - Do you feel a moral obligation to your parents who took care of you? If you do, then I'm just saying that there is some feeling within that a debt is owed.

and One comment - Societies where children are an indulgence and not a resource for their parents, are shrinking in the long term due to lower birth rates in today's world. Simple supply and demand.

If there are 2 competitive jurisdictions, one where the pure libertarian logic is applied and another where a certain debt is assumed, then there is a greater probability on the margin, of people leaving from the libertarian society and going to the other one, once they become parents.


1481430609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430609
Reply with quote  #2

1481430609
Report to moderator
1481430609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430609
Reply with quote  #2

1481430609
Report to moderator
1481430609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430609
Reply with quote  #2

1481430609
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481430609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430609
Reply with quote  #2

1481430609
Report to moderator
1481430609
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481430609

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481430609
Reply with quote  #2

1481430609
Report to moderator
Sovereign
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 80



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:03:47 PM
 #122

I was always against tyranny. However, as a child I started liking communism because it promised 'social justice', with it's everybody gets what he needs, everybody produces what he can  infantile fantasies. After learning about democracy and republics, I believed in democracy, because everybody should have a right to vote, everybody should have a right to participate.

Then I began to realize the fallacies of democracy, that it is nothing more than a majority infringing the right of the minority, and moved slightly towards more republican views, such as constitutional government. This step opened the door to having civil rights and individual rights being of core importance in determining societal organization. Of course, after prioritizing individual rights, one can quickly see the contradictions of constitutional republican governments (read Frederic Bastiat: The Law). That let to espousing a minarchist limited government view. Government only when necessary.


Then logic and reason eventually guided me towards voluntaryism, that any action taken, anyone affected by that action must agree to that action as much as possible.

12uB1LSPrAqeEefLJTDfd6rKsu3KjiFBpa
hugolp
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
July 01, 2011, 03:13:07 PM
 #123

I was a social-democrat raised by a couple of social-democrat parents. I was probably your typical lefty ignorant on economics and guided by emotional rethoric. But I always had a strong anti-authoritarian strike, and disliked when the left would become abusive. With 19 yo I decided that politicians were all corrupted and stoped following politics. That is until I was 28 that I discovered Ron Paul randomly through a Youtube video. I was surprised that a republican, that I was taught was an ignorant crazy jesus follower with lots of weapons, was preaching against the wars and against the abuses of that thing called central bank. That lead me to start researching about central banks and monetary policy and history. Murray Rothbard popped there, austrian economics, then free banking. Through my interest for monetary policy I understood the political philosophy of liberty. It made sense, but it was quite an emotinal ride to change the views I had been indoctrinated with. I was a minarchists, until I discover mutualism. Reading mutualist theory I became convinced that anarchism is a real posibility. I would not define myself as a mutualist or an anarcho-capitalists. Im a market anarchists, a voluntaryist.
freespirit
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 161


View Profile
July 01, 2011, 04:23:58 PM
 #124

everybody should have a right to vote, everybody should have a right to participate.
This is a dangerous assumption.

That's what created the current state of affairs (in Europe especially) when people who do not pay taxes (or pay little) have a right to vote on - effectively - how collected [from other people] taxes are spent and how much taxes should be imposed [on other people]. This is not freedom. This is legalized stealing. (poorer/lazier/scammers/etc. people slowly vote out other people's property for themselves) Plus it is not sustainable anyway, look what's going on with Greece right now. Bloated "public sector" and "welfare state" => insane borrowing => bankruptcy [of the government]. And guess what they are doing to fix this? They are increasing taxes! [besides other otherwise reasonable measures]

That's also what created a number of socialist dictatorships (in South America and elsewhere) as poor people often vote for someone who "will provide for them".

Either only actual taxpayers should be allowed to vote or the governments should not meddle with people's property/finances (they should not have a right to "tax" anyone, instead we should only pay them for actual services provided). I like the second option better. You do not pay your telephone or electricity provider a percentage of your income. (not to mention a "progressive" percentage) Why governments are any different?
lemonginger
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 03:48:29 AM
 #125


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.


Are you sure those libertarian socialists weren't arguing for the use of force to prevent an individual from stealing property from common ownership? (and initiating force against a whole group of people?)
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 04:57:58 AM
 #126


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.


Are you sure those libertarian socialists weren't arguing for the use of force to prevent an individual from stealing property from common ownership? (and initiating force against a whole group of people?)

There is obviously some disagreement on exactly what is property and how it is legitimately acquired, held and transferred.  Common law emerges to deal with potential conflicts. This body of law varies in both substance and application over time and from place to place. Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals.

Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

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

Activity: 210


firstbits: 121vnq


View Profile
July 02, 2011, 02:46:50 PM
 #127

Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals. Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

Furthermore, that many things cannot actually be owned - air, oceans, land(this last one is a particular sticking point and has led to many schisms yes? from Proudhon to Bakunin to Thomas Paine to George etc etc), other sentient beings (again they can be weakly/partially owned -- it would be a crime if I took your dogs from you, but ALSO a crime if you tortured them -- you do not have the right to do whatever you want to another sentient being just because you "own" it)...and we haven't even got to whether labor is alienable or not yet Smiley

(and that the "individual" is, at the end of the day, a fictional construct as well - though keep in mind I'm a Buddhist sociologist who also studied neuroscience, so I have all kinds of issues with the idea of a rational and isolated "self" from all sorts of angles -- micro and macro)
bitplane
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 321

Firstbits: 1gyzhw


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 06:45:44 PM
 #128

Started as an anarchist, slowly became a socialist and eventually a pragmatist. Politics is an abstract space that can be explored infinitely in all directions, there is no ultimate truth or correct way, only what is useful and what is not.
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 07:50:57 PM
 #129

Having said that, something owned by everybody is effectively something owned by nobody. Society is an abstraction, a group of individuals. Ownership is basically control, and unless there is unanimity among the owners, someone is disenfranchised and without control. That is the grounds for conflict. Private ownership minimizes property conflict but we recognize that it is impossible to eliminate conflict entirely.

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

Furthermore, that many things cannot actually be owned - air, oceans, land(this last one is a particular sticking point and has led to many schisms yes? from Proudhon to Bakunin to Thomas Paine to George etc etc), other sentient beings (again they can be weakly/partially owned -- it would be a crime if I took your dogs from you, but ALSO a crime if you tortured them -- you do not have the right to do whatever you want to another sentient being just because you "own" it)...and we haven't even got to whether labor is alienable or not yet Smiley

(and that the "individual" is, at the end of the day, a fictional construct as well - though keep in mind I'm a Buddhist sociologist who also studied neuroscience, so I have all kinds of issues with the idea of a rational and isolated "self" from all sorts of angles -- micro and macro)

Held in trust by whom? Who decides what constitutes an appropriate "benefit" or what recompense is required?  Without unanimity, someone is being ruled over and someone is acting as a ruler. That can't properly be called "anarchy".

Christians hold that all things belong to God and we are merely stewards. You apparently want Christianity without Christ. So I ask again: who decides? Are not these 'deciders" archons?

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

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

Activity: 532


FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 08:06:08 PM
 #130

And, that, in a nutshell, is the primary difference (and it is a huge difference) between left-libertarians and right-libertarians. Left-libs tend towards thinking that things, prior to being owned, are "held in trust" for the benefit of all beings, now and in the future, and that if someone takes that out of that trust, other beings at the very least deserve recompense

See, now this just opens a whole can of worms. Like bja said, Who gets the compensation? I agree, Humans do value unspoiled wilderness, Which is why parkland should be just as profitable as say, A housing development (Not in raw intake, of course, but much lower costs of upkeep keep the margin about the same.) At the same time, if either plot of land is allowed to become polluted, or aesthetically degraded, the profit value would drop significantly, so its in the owner's best interest to keep it clean.

Also: Are you defining dogs as sentient slaves?

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
billyjoeallen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


Hide your women


View Profile WWW
July 02, 2011, 08:42:55 PM
 #131

It's a big can can of worms. Which human's consent is required if not all of them?  Who gets to decide? Why limit common ownership to humans? To primates? to mammals? to animals? to living things?

Rules are "enforced" which means someone or something has to do the enforcing.  Unenforceable rules are bad rules, no matter how just, no matter how well-intended. Enforceable rules may or may not be good rules, depending on what results they produce. Good results are produced when rules are in harmony with physical and economic laws. Laws (supply and demand, gravity), as opposed to rules, are self-enforcing.
 
One cannot prevent he exploitation of commonly owned (un-owned) natural resources to any significant degree because any attempt runs into the problem of concentrated costs and distributed benefits.  Any tree-hugging crusader would pay far more than they personally benefit and eventually go broke or die.

Contrarily, Statism concentrates benefits and distributes costs. This is why leftists are almost all Statists, but also why Statism is self-defeating.  The State itself is a commonly owned resource that faces the very same tragedy of the commons as the natural world. Eventually there is always an irrepressible temptation to loot the State of it's resources like a commonly owned and over-fished lake. Careful observers will notice this race to the bottom is occurring right now in America and virtually every other country on Earth.

insert coin here:
1Ctd7Na8qE7btyueEshAJF5C7ZqFWH11Wc

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

Activity: 336



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 06:54:44 AM
 #132

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?

I don't believe in rights.  They're legal fictions created by governments, much like property and corporations.

Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 06:58:51 AM
 #133

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.

I think children have some claim on their parents, not the other way around.  Parents brought children into the world, without their consent, that creates an obligation to provide for the well being of those children until they are capable of providing for their own well being or until they choose to change the nature of the relationship. 

I am very much in favor of the ability to depart a community, however there are many cases where obligations will need to be discharged while terminating the relationship.  Those are when obligations have been assumed, voluntarially, by the person who is now leaving.  Unless the community chooses to quit him of those obligations in order to get him out smoothly.

Babylon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 336



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 07:05:53 AM
 #134

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.

I agree that according to libertarian logic, what you are saying is correct.

One question - Do you feel a moral obligation to your parents who took care of you? If you do, then I'm just saying that there is some feeling within that a debt is owed.

and One comment - Societies where children are an indulgence and not a resource for their parents, are shrinking in the long term due to lower birth rates in today's world. Simple supply and demand.

If there are 2 competitive jurisdictions, one where the pure libertarian logic is applied and another where a certain debt is assumed, then there is a greater probability on the margin, of people leaving from the libertarian society and going to the other one, once they become parents.



The children are likely to move to the libertarian society, when they have the ability to do so.

blogospheroid
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 129



View Profile
July 03, 2011, 02:33:17 PM
 #135

The children are likely to move to the libertarian society, when they have the ability to do so.

In today's world, it is mainly adults who move between nations. I don't expect this to be significantly different in most situations.

The main questions topmost on the mind of competitive jurisdiction advocates
 -  the relationship between various phyles and how they react to people leaving and the debts that the communities they leave say are still left on them.
 - What will trigger war?

dannickherpderp
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 33


View Profile
July 05, 2011, 06:29:11 PM
 #136

I just switched over to communism because they promised me more cookies and a brand new Hyundai!

So long, suckers!
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!