Bitcoin is being invaded by Leftists

[Carlton Banks]

Why always someone need to relate almost everything on this planet with politic? I`m against all politic, for me all politicians are bad people. They don`t know how to do anything, they are just good at one thing and it`s talking.
Bitcoin is payment system and I think that democracy is the worst thing that can happen with bitcoin, but not just that, everything else involved with politics can be bad thing for bitcoin. Bitcoin is currency, and bitcoin needs to have one role and that is to make things easier for people. We all know what is fiat, and where it comes from, bitcoin system is much better from my perspective.

Couldn't agree more. Money and capitalism should be used as tools to enable free-market decisions about resources, and therefore anti-political in nature. So this kind of political language (left-right) has no place in Bitcoin.

[RealBitcoin]

my comments about your apparent flip from:
the authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship of wanting blockstreams dream of offchain as the payment layer, onchain as the settlement layer
to
the liberal freedom that people should have freedom of choice by expanding onchain capacity, to allow choices to expand unhindered
is on topic.

and if your sudden realization and epiphany is genuine, then i sincerely applaud it.
though i still have a feeling its just a temporary ruse. and only time and your future comments about your ideals can uphold your new mindset, or reveal it to have been temporary.

i have the feeling its a subtle plan to make a later point, that your change of mind cannot be defined in the left or right category, which even "realbitcoin" cannot define as 2 separate states.

but i truly do hope you are genuinely dropping your authoritarian monarchistic dictatorship. and if so. i truly and sincerely applaud your realization

Dear franky1, you are talking nonsense as usual.

Bitcoin cannot have 2 codes competing on the same network, that is called an altcoin ,and you have 1000+ of those already. Only 1 code can run on 1 network.

If you don't like bitcoin's current code, go an create your altcoin.

[Carlton Banks]

Discourage? With what? Fines? Jail?

No, there could be other solutions, like not promoting it in every fucking media outlet. Literally from degenerate hiphop music to hippy crap its all about drugs, and that gets annoying after a while.

Yea if people were responsible ,but they are not. Like how well it worked out with alcohol, 80% of teenagers are constantly drunk, and by the time they get old they get all sorts of liver and intestine problems.

Don't tell me drugs dont have side effects, after all they are far worse than you pimp them. I think it makes people zombies, all these drug addicts look like some mentally disabled zombies.

Some people can use drugs responsibly, and some drugs are just easy to use responsibly (tea and coffee, for instance. Take it away from a coffee drinker, then tell me it's not addictive).

You've got strong opinions about this, but guess what? (you guessed it...) Me too. I agree that "drug culture" is sometimes very alarming to observe, but people should be free to do so. And I'm a product of that culture to a certain extent, as the 90's electronic music scene played a big role in my upbringing. The extent to which that culture brought together ghetto-ised inner city youth was amazing, and the results were overwhelmingly positive.


I understand that crude exploitation of these drug-fuelled cultures lead to banal music and culture, but I fail to see how The Beatles, Larry Heard (of acid house fame) or Eric B & Rakim could have come about without LSD, MDMA or marijuana. The music influenced the drugs and the drugs influenced the music. And those musicians are up there with Bach and Puccini for me.

Yes, but I'm still interested to hear how it is you would like drugs to be discouraged without tyranny though!

By finding the root cause why people are addicts in the first place ,and eliminate that. Drug addicts, alcohol addicts, food addicts, video game addicts, sex addicts, etc etc...

They need therapy not prison. But above all we need to find out the causes why they are addicts ,and eliminate the causes.

Few of the reasons could be poverty, lack of discipline, bad education, abusive parents, etc...

Yes, I agree. But compulsive behaviour is complex psychology sometimes, it depends on so much about the way an individual thinks. The frequently difficult aspect is getting someone with harmful behaviour to even recognise they have a problem. Unless you want to force them into treatment (not the libertarian way), significant amounts of drug addicts will not take the advice.

In principle, me too. Should authorities be involved in either marriage or divorce though, that's what I'm really getting at. It's one thing to have an opinion, yours and mine are the same or similar. It's another thing to say what you think should happen about it.

How about this: why not let people get married and divorced without anyone to officiate? Who's business is it when two people wish to make a new family together, other than that of the spouses? Blockchain could do that job IMO

No but what is the point of marriage if it's not life long?

People should be careful who they choose. Marriage should not be a contract that you can just dissolve. It when you have a kid, you dont throw him away just because you dont like him. You stick with it until you die.

So people have to be very careful who they choose as partners.

I am tired of all this cheatings, divorces, cuckold couples, and other bullshit. The kids will suffer from this and become just as stupid as their parents.

*sigh*

Yes, I agree with all this too. But who really goes into any relationship without hoping it might be the one that lasts? I've often said that there's alot of people out there that just aren't suited to getting married, you can see the outcome (divorce) years in advance with some people. But again, freedom to make mistakes is paramount for me. Maybe if we weren't all living these very intense 40 hours + working weeks with 14 days holiday a year, people would have better quality time to think about these decisions, to meet a wider range of people before they make hasty or ill-considered commitments.

Uh-oh, collectivist authoritarian detection! Nations are artificial to a large extent, and you can't be saying government is by nature oppressive and corrupt, and simultaneously grant  the same institution the power to police borders as a monopoly on force.

Let's put it another way: do you know what year national borders, and the passports needed to cross them, were introduced? Clue: not as long ago as you might think.

So is your property, but that doesnt mean you wont defend it. Who cares if it's artificial, its your culture and your neighborhood or your way of life.

Who said anything here about a government? Why cant the border security be a competitive thing? Just as bodyguards or private security could be an alternative to police, we could see similar things for border security.

Yeah because people realized that immigration can bring down empires, it brough down the Roman Empire and just look at Europe now, do you like it?

I'm with you on these observations also, immigration is being used as a covert weapon by the political class. The left-identifying knee-jerking annoys me a great deal here: merely pointing out that 100's of thousands of immigrants arriving simultaneously is going to cause indigenous xenophobes to start calling for lynchings is itself dismissed as racism. I don't know what they think they're arguing for, that somehow they can convert every who's afraid of foreigners into hippies overnight, just because "it's the right thing to do". What difference does that make if the migrants and the xenophobes end up all killing each other!

I agree that security services would be more accountable if privatised. But the borders stuff has to go, apart from the border to your house and mine, of course. There's one aspect of globalisation that no-one can put back into the bottle: the technology. Modern transport and communications have made the world a smaller place, and that trend is not looking like changing for the time being. When it takes hours to do journeys that used to take weeks, when I think of the idea of queuing up to check myself in at the gate to get a little book stamped....

I just don't have time for that. I'd love to be able to develop trading relationships worldwide, just for a weekly grocery shop. Go to Equador and Cote d'Ivoire for some chocolate, over to India and China for tea leaves and spices, pass through quickly France, Chile and Uruguay for vegetables.... how am I supposed to get this all done in one day if I have to mess about with customs desks and immigration officials and visa documents and...
 

[DooMAD]

Bitcoin cannot have 2 codes competing on the same network, that is called an altcoin ,and you have 1000+ of those already. Only 1 code can run on 1 network.

If you don't like bitcoin's current code, go an create your altcoin.

If a client sends and receives coins on an alternate blockchain, then it's an altcoin.  If, however, it sends and receives bitcoin transactions following Bitcoin's blockchain, then it's still Bitcoin.  The specific alternative clients you're referring to still adhere to the rules of the Bitcoin network and will continue to do so, unless the market chooses to change those rules.  Bitcoin can and does have more than one code running on the same network.  Not all alternative clients propose changes to the rules.  There's clearly a few you aren't aware of.  You can view a list of them at the bottom of this page.  There are Bitcoin clients programmed in Go/lang, F# and Haskell which perform similarly to Core, are they altcoins too?  BitPay have their own client called Bitcore, which simply adds some enhanced API features.  Again, does that make it an altcoin?

[franky1]

Dear franky1, you are talking nonsense as usual.

Bitcoin cannot have 2 codes competing on the same network, that is called an altcoin ,and you have 1000+ of those already. Only 1 code can run on 1 network.

If you don't like bitcoin's current code, go an create your altcoin.

LOL
1. bitcoinJ (java) is running on the network, as are Nbitcoin(C# and VB), BU, XT, knots, classic and a dozen other implementations with different code and different rules set locally in their nodes.

2. the network is not in one place. its made up by different locations with all their different code, the network survives by a consensus of rules where orphans take care of the different locations that dont fit the rules.

3. a node accepting any block below 2mb will work happily while another node wants only 1mb. as long as miners only produce under 1mb blocks, all code can work together, and currently do. the 2MB proposal is not 'all blocks have to be over 1mb' but anything under 2mb is acceptable.

4. mining pools wont even attempt to do anything outside of consensus because it will hurt them due to the orphaning mechanism (make their block and reward disappear)

5. no proposal has shown desire of a split. they have shown desire of consensus.

6. you are avoiding decentralization and open system to pretend bitcoin is centralized to core. fail on you

7. its consensus (compromise and agreement) that allows the network to upgrade. without agreement there is no upgrade. it continues unchanged.

8. dictating what a rule should be and forcing a split to the opposition is how altcoins are made. by a 'workaround' to avoid the orphaning consensus mechanism.

9. it is only core that are suggesting(not as official proposal) right now they wont meet consensus and any opposition should split. your statement and other dictatorship lovers statement prove such.

you need to learn about consensus, decentralization, and open networks.

i feel sorry for anyone thinking bitcoin is owned by one corporation
the network has no owner. it has consensus. anyone who agrees to the consensus has authorisation to use the network


but here is your opinion summerised.

[blank] due to realbitcoins opinion lacking fact, thus meaningless

[RealBitcoin]

Yes, I agree. But compulsive behaviour is complex psychology sometimes, it depends on so much about the way an individual thinks. The frequently difficult aspect is getting someone with harmful behaviour to even recognise they have a problem. Unless you want to force them into treatment (not the libertarian way), significant amounts of drug addicts will not take the advice.

Well then they have to be denied healthcare when their health goes south. There is no way to put it.

Either they go to therapy, or their healthcare won't cover drug related ilnesses. This is a libertarian fair ,way to not incentivize unhealthy behaviour.

Better yet, eliminate socialized healthcare entirely, why should a healthy person pay for an alcoholic or a drug addicts bills?

*sigh*

Yes, I agree with all this too. But who really goes into any relationship without hoping it might be the one that lasts? I've often said that there's alot of people out there that just aren't suited to getting married, you can see the outcome (divorce) years in advance with some people. But again, freedom to make mistakes is paramount for me. Maybe if we weren't all living these very intense 40 hours + working weeks with 14 days holiday a year, people would have better quality time to think about these decisions, to meet a wider range of people before they make hasty or ill-considered commitments.

Yea good point, it is really annoying that people have to work 40+ hours a week, they dont have time for raising kids, they dont have time for romance, heck they dont have time to live.

This is one of the root causes of socialism, if we give people more time to choose things, they will make more rational decisions, than in the heat of the moment.

I am not saying you have to force people to stay together, nor I would like to ban divorce. I dont like to ban things, i just want to discourage bad behaviour.

So if a family decides to divorce, it's their choice, but they should suffer the consequences as well: no allimony, no maternal leave, no government welfare for single parents, and then let's see how they will live.

I'm with you on these observations also, immigration is being used as a covert weapon by the political class. The left-identifying knee-jerking annoys me a great deal here: merely pointing out that 100's of thousands of immigrants arriving simultaneously is going to cause indigenous xenophobes to start calling for lynchings is itself dismissed as racism. I don't know what they think they're arguing for, that somehow they can convert every who's afraid of foreigners into hippies overnight, just because "it's the right thing to do". What difference does that make if the migrants and the xenophobes end up all killing each other!

Well it is being use to breed more welfare voting leftists.

I agree that security services would be more accountable if privatised. But the borders stuff has to go, apart from the border to your house and mine, of course. There's one aspect of globalisation that no-one can put back into the bottle: the technology. Modern transport and communications have made the world a smaller place, and that trend is not looking like changing for the time being. When it takes hours to do journeys that used to take weeks, when I think of the idea of queuing up to check myself in at the gate to get a little book stamped....

Well no it doesnt work that way, you have to ensure the security of the perimeter too, not just your house. If an armed mafia moves to your neighborhood, it won't help you if you have a pistol and lock your door, they will keep the neighborhood in fear and rob everybody. So unless you have money for a permanent army battalion headquartered in your backyard, I suggest you to take a more collective defense strategy here.

I would say a neighborhood run police force would be bare minimum. Basically the neighboors choose a security company to do the policing in that zone, with specialized and well trained people, it would work well.

I just don't have time for that. I'd love to be able to develop trading relationships worldwide, just for a weekly grocery shop. Go to Equador and Cote d'Ivoire for some chocolate, over to India and China for tea leaves and spices, pass through quickly France, Chile and Uruguay for vegetables.... how am I supposed to get this all done in one day if I have to mess about with customs desks and immigration officials and visa documents and...
 

Well you cant because 1 flight is about 10 hours, so there is no way to be in all these places in 1 day.

But you could establish an international import company to do these things, setup a few supermarkets, and you have all your international goodies in your neighborhood grocery store.

[Carlton Banks]

Bitcoin can and does have more than one code running on the same network.  Not all alternative clients propose changes to the rules.  

Now tell me you can have more than one set of consensus rules functioning at once. Sure, BU has different consensus rules, but it's only applying those rules within what Core allows. Any rules an alt client has that contradict Core's rules won't actually end up expressed in a way that changes blockchain behaviour.

So any alternative rules are just sitting still, not functioning within the boundaries they set. They function within Core's boundaries, and it's basically as if they do not exist, as to all intents and purposes, they do not.

[franky1]

Bitcoin can and does have more than one code running on the same network.  Not all alternative clients propose changes to the rules.  

Now tell me you can have more than one set of consensus rules functioning at once. Sure, BU has different consensus rules, but it's only applying those rules within what Core allows. Any rules an alt client has that contradict Core's rules won't actually end up expressed in a way that changes blockchain behaviour.

So any alternative rules are just sitting still, not functioning within the boundaries they set. They function within Core's boundaries, and it's basically as if they do not exist, as to all intents and purposes, they do not.

lol you dont understand consensus.
please dont waste 3 hours writing comments about your love of a core dictatorship.
if you really want to use your own time:
spend 2 hours researching and understanding and then spend 5 minutes realizing the epiphany you keep forgetting.
it saves you time, it saves you wasting time. it teaches you something. meaning overall you are better for it.

if you instead just reply wasting your time with your dictatorship mindset. then it appears the epiphany you had has been lost.
please dont waste your own time repeating the dictatorship rhetoric without understanding how consensus works
please research bitcoins consensus mechanism. it will help you

[Carlton Banks]

Franky thinks "consensus" means something different from what the dictionary says lol. Oh do tell Franky, I'm sure it won't be a confusing, 25 paragraph, Joycian stream-of-consciousness mess, lol

[DooMAD]

Sure, BU has different consensus rules, but it's only applying those rules within what Core allows. Any rules an alt client has that contradict Core's rules won't actually end up expressed in a way that changes blockchain behaviour.

So any alternative rules are just sitting still, not functioning within the boundaries they set. They function within Core's boundaries, and it's basically as if they do not exist, as to all intents and purposes, they do not.

Personally, I'd substitute each instance of "Core" for "the market", but other than that, agreed.  These alternative clients would only be altcoins if they activated a fork without consensus.  Aside from that, they conform 100% to the rules set by the market.  All they do is give the market the opportunity to choose what those rules should be.  A free and open market where the users can choose what code they run.  

Code is law and consensus is king, so in a sense, you still get your monarchy.  

[kanazawa]

The fact is that 99,99% of leftist don't even imagine what is and how is socialism or communism in practice. I live today in Latin America and here we got the Venezuelan case. I won't talk about it but many of you can seek all over the internet, it's full of articles, etc.

History is full of example. Honestly, everyone who sympatize with socialism and communism is extremely dumbass, stupid and in the strictly meaning of the word, an idiot.

You who sympatize, just search this terms:

1) Scientific diet Program in Romania;
2) O socialismo latino-americano: um grande negócio para os ricos e um pesadelo para os pobres;
3) O socialismo venezuelano: pessoas comendo cachorros, saqueando supermercados e morrendo de inanição;
4) A maré estatista na America Latina e a teoria do intervencionismo;

Most are in portuguese, but who is interested translate it.

[mrcash02]

The fact is that 99,99% of leftist don't even imagine what is and how is socialism or communism in practice. I live today in Latin America and here we got the Venezuelan case. I won't talk about it but many of you can seek all over the internet, it's full of articles, etc.

History is full of example. Honestly, everyone who sympatize with socialism and communism is extremely dumbass, stupid and in the strictly meaning of the word, an idiot.

You who sympatize, just search this terms:

1) Scientific diet Program in Romania;
2) O socialismo latino-americano: um grande negócio para os ricos e um pesadelo para os pobres;
3) O socialismo venezuelano: pessoas comendo cachorros, saqueando supermercados e morrendo de inanição;
4) A maré estatista na America Latina e a teoria do intervencionismo;

Most are in portuguese, but who is interested translate it.

Everything leftists touch become dust. They are underhanded and liars, say about a better life for poors, but they just want to reign and to have all power on their hands! They don't create anything, they just want to have all the rights over it next. And with Bitcoins it couldn't be different!

They say the world is a big party where everybody is friend of each other (least those who don't agree with them, those must suffer). And people still believe them...

And I already saw a lot of those leftists also, principally on FB groups of my country. I don't understood why they are there if they love censorship.

[Carlton Banks]

History is full of example. Honestly, everyone who sympatize with socialism and communism is extremely dumbass, stupid and in the strictly meaning of the word, an idiot.

So you're a capitalist? Are you capitalist about everything, definitely no communist thought or action ever comes from you, right?

[RealBitcoin]

The fact is that 99,99% of leftist don't even imagine what is and how is socialism or communism in practice. I live today in Latin America and here we got the Venezuelan case. I won't talk about it but many of you can seek all over the internet, it's full of articles, etc.

History is full of example. Honestly, everyone who sympatize with socialism and communism is extremely dumbass, stupid and in the strictly meaning of the word, an idiot.

You who sympatize, just search this terms:

1) Scientific diet Program in Romania;
2) O socialismo latino-americano: um grande negócio para os ricos e um pesadelo para os pobres;
3) O socialismo venezuelano: pessoas comendo cachorros, saqueando supermercados e morrendo de inanição;
4) A maré estatista na America Latina e a teoria do intervencionismo;

Most are in portuguese, but who is interested translate it.

My great grandfather was a  POW in a Soviet Gulag after WW2,  I know exactly how scum the communists are. They are the lowest form of scum that this planet has ever seen.

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

[Carlton Banks]

My great grandfather was a  POW in a Soviet Gulag after WW2,  I know exactly how scum the communists are. They are the lowest form of scum that this planet has ever seen.

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

Please don't be upset with me here, I don't intend to offend, as I understand how important honouring one's family is.


But don't you see that neither capitalism or liberty motivated you to honour your grandfather's memory as you are here. It is a sense of duty, pride, respect, honour and love of your family that was in mind. These are all tribal, collectivist attributes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you see that collectivism isn't always wrong or evil, as long as the collective can be chosen freely? Otherwise, we'd be throwing our newborn babies out in the street to stop collectives forming! Everything has it's place, and communes or collectives are foolish when enacted on a grand scale, in a top-down fashion, as critics of political communism all know. But when collectives are tiny, atomised, bottom-up, and freely chosen, it makes the individuals in those collectives (called families) stronger.

[DooMAD]

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

I suppose you think the Nazis were leftists too?

Left and Right are equally capable of genocide and evil tyranny.  The common denominator is authoritarians.  The Soviets were an authoritarian regime.  Authoritarian regimes don't generally recognise the rights of individuals or personal freedom.  So left or right would have made little difference.  How many more times does it have to be said?  The Authoritarian/Libertarian scale is far more pertinent than the Left/Right one in this discussion.

[RealBitcoin]

My great grandfather was a  POW in a Soviet Gulag after WW2,  I know exactly how scum the communists are. They are the lowest form of scum that this planet has ever seen.

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

Please don't be upset with me here, I don't intend to offend, as I understand how important honouring one's family is.


But don't you see that neither capitalism or liberty motivated you to honour your grandfather's memory as you are here. It is a sense of duty, pride, respect, honour and love of your family that was in mind. These are all tribal, collectivist attributes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you see that collectivism isn't always wrong or evil, as long as the collective can be chosen freely? Otherwise, we'd be throwing our newborn babies out in the street to stop collectives forming! Everything has it's place, and communes or collectives are foolish when enacted on a grand scale, in a top-down fashion, as critics of political communism all know. But when collectives are tiny, atomised, bottom-up, and freely chosen, it makes the individuals in those collectives (called families) stronger.

He didnt die in the gulag, he was released 5 years later and told how they were tortured there, but his health declined severely after, and he died a few years later. The siberian gulag is no joke, I don't want to go in details.

So when I see silly leftists demanding more socialism, you know where that will lead, eventually.


I dont even know what you are talking about, I dont reject group solidarity, if you are part of a group that respects your individuality while also working together for a common goal, that is acceptable. Of course everything is based on groups: a company, a community (this bitcoin!) , a family, etc...

But collectivism is not this, collectivism, is not group solidarity, it is totalitarian management of a group by a chosen elite. There was no equality in communism, because you always had a hierarchy.

So I am not against being in a group, but against being managed in a collectivist style, that the left is pushing. They don't respect individuality.

So left or right would have made little difference.  How many more times does it have to be said?  The Authoritarian/Libertarian scale is far more pertinent than the Left/Right one in this discussion.

You are late on this discussion, I already explained to Carlton, that:

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, and works well: Roman Republic pre Punic wars: low taxes, tiny regulations, prosperity, free market, low crime, no socialism.

While there is no evidence of a libertarian left, the left is always authoritarian: 1800's anarchists turned into Bolsheviks by 1900.

[Carlton Banks]

My great grandfather was a  POW in a Soviet Gulag after WW2,  I know exactly how scum the communists are. They are the lowest form of scum that this planet has ever seen.

So I have a nose that can smell a leftist from miles away, and it stinks from genocide and evil tyranny.

But don't you see that neither capitalism or liberty motivated you to honour your grandfather's memory as you are here. It is a sense of duty, pride, respect, honour and love of your family that was in mind. These are all tribal, collectivist attributes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you see that collectivism isn't always wrong or evil, as long as the collective can be chosen freely? Otherwise, we'd be throwing our newborn babies out in the street to stop collectives forming! Everything has it's place, and communes or collectives are foolish when enacted on a grand scale, in a top-down fashion, as critics of political communism all know. But when collectives are tiny, atomised, bottom-up, and freely chosen, it makes the individuals in those collectives (called families) stronger.

He didnt die in the gulag, he was released 5 years later and told how they were tortured there, but his health declined severely after, and he died a few years later. The siberian gulag is no joke, I don't want to go in details.

I've never met anyone with a story like that. My grandfathers/greatgrandfathers were involved in the World Wars, but they were lucky enough not to suffer long term capture or anything like the gulags.

I dont even know what you are talking about, I dont reject group solidarity, if you are part of a group that respects your individuality while also working together for a common goal, that is acceptable. Of course everything is based on groups: a company, a community (this bitcoin!) , a family, etc...

But collectivism is not this, collectivism, is not group solidarity, it is totalitarian management of a group by a chosen elite. There was no equality in communism, because you always had a hierarchy.

So I am not against being in a group, but against being managed in a collectivist style, that the left is pushing. They don't respect individuality.

Unfortunately, collective and group mean the same thing. If the political scientist who coined the term "collectivism" had decided otherwise, it would be called "groupism" and still be an equivalent concept. Political language has a habit of becoming detached from it's original meaning, words used to convey political meaning can end up telling people nothing except who the "others" are, what label we use to identify them with. It's as if a word that should be a description gets changed into just a meaningless name instead.


Recognise, this is so frustrating for me: I agree with maybe 95% of all your political views, and yet I classify myself as an anarchist, without any left/right slant at all! It seems really regrettable to me that people might choose to be in conflict with each other over a political label that I am pretty sure is a clever trick to get people to fight each other!

[DooMAD]

You are late on this discussion, I already explained to Carlton, that:

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, and works well: Roman Republic pre Punic wars: low taxes, tiny regulations, prosperity, free market, low crime, no socialism.

While there is no evidence of a libertarian left, the left is always authoritarian

Then you explained it wrong.  Maybe you need pictures to help explain it to you.



Hitler and Pinochet were brutal, genocidal maniacs and they were both right wing authoritarians.

Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama are left wingers but didn't slaughter countless innocents and were not authoritarians.

Now stop spouting drivel.

[RealBitcoin]

I've never met anyone with a story like that. My grandfathers/greatgrandfathers were involved in the World Wars, but they were lucky enough not to suffer long term capture or anything like the gulags.

Well there are many people who survived Gulags. Most of them didnt, but the POW were released after 5-10 years I think. But most gulag prisoners were politicial prisoners , not war prisoners, most of those had died there.

You should read up on communist atrocities, you will find many fascinating and sad stories.

Unfortunately, collective and group mean the same thing. If the political scientist who coined the term "collectivism" had decided otherwise, it would be called "groupism" and still be an equivalent concept. Political language has a habit of becoming detached from it's original meaning, words used to convey political meaning can end up telling people nothing except who the "others" are, what label we use to identify them with. It's as if a word that should be a description gets changed into just a meaningless name instead.

Well yea that is my point the word collective is like the Borg Collective from Startrek, an entity that is like a single unit, having totalitarian control over their dominion.

While a group means just a voluntary association of individuals, and doesnt have the domination element there.

Recognise, this is so frustrating for me: I agree with maybe 95% of all your political views, and yet I classify myself as an anarchist, without any left/right slant at all! It seems really regrettable to me that people might choose to be in conflict with each other over a political label that I am pretty sure is a clever trick to get people to fight each other!

Hey I dont mind if you disagree with me, we still have a common goal here: Bitcoin. As long as we both want bitcoin's long term success, who cares about the other disagreements?

You are late on this discussion, I already explained to Carlton, that:

While the right could be authoritarian, in most cases it isnt, and works well: Roman Republic pre Punic wars: low taxes, tiny regulations, prosperity, free market, low crime, no socialism.

While there is no evidence of a libertarian left, the left is always authoritarian

Then you explained it wrong.  Maybe you need pictures to help explain it to you.



Hitler and Pinochet were brutal, genocidal maniacs and they were both right wing authoritarians.

Ghandi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama are left wingers but didn't slaughter countless innocents and were not authoritarians.

Now stop spouting drivel.

What are you talking about , I specifically said anti-authoritarian right wing.

Besides that chart is a bit way off: Merkel right wing? And the Pope is left-wing? Give me a break.

Look into the Roman Economy: $43.4bn GDP 2000 years ago:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_economy

Most countries still dont have this GDP, after 2000 years of evolution, they did in 2000 years ago, by having the best economic system available.