This is the thread where you discuss free market, americans and libertarianism

[Mike Christ]

snip

None of your points lead to me believing you understand why alternatives would look appealing.  Are you implying the system we have now is as good as it has ever been?

The only alternatives that exist are ones that I can actually go to and try out. Everything else is just imagination and theory.
And no, the US system sounds terrible. All that indoctrination! The last time I suggested that freedom and slavery are basically the same concept, just opposite sides of the same coin, I got laughed at. Yet Americans and many others strongly desire this 'freedom'. It must be a very scarce commodity. From the outside it seems clear that the US government is just a side-effect of its people and their attitudes.

Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it.  Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.

In the US' case it's probably way past the point of no return, and there might be some kind of economic collapse, war, civil war, states breaking away etc. It could be sudden, or maybe the country will continue to get ransacked for a few more years (everyone gradually bails; last one turn out the lights plz). But in general, I'd say governments are a reflection of society, and if society is able to look in the mirror, it should be possible to keep the admin side reasonably honest and sane. I suspect there are also game theory arguments as to why large country-sized crowds would tend to evolve in ways that always result in some kind of government-like structure, but that only explains why governments seem unavoidable.

That's the problem I have with government.  For fun, find a map, or a globe, and stop your finger anywhere that isn't water.  Chances are, the spot you've picked is under some form of government.  We can then determine if that government is benign, or completely bonkers, but one thing we can know for certain, no matter what, is that there's likely someone who sits on the very top of that spot of land, someone who calls the shots, and may or may not attempt to take his fellow citizen's thoughts into running that place.  No matter what government we could list, however, there is always this problem: you have one person, or a small group of people, who make more decision than any other individual within that nation.  Even if that one person made 1% of the decisions of his nation, he would still be making more choices than Joe, who only makes, say, .01% decision, based on his voting, or however he participates.  Because this one individual has more power than anyone else, he always, always, always, uses that power to his own advantage, either consciously, or subconsciously.  There is no benevolent government.  There is always a government who stays afloat through the force of taxation and likely writes laws for its citizens to adhere to.  If these laws are not followed, the government will use violence to ensure the citizen does adhere to law.  Law and taxation are inseparable, for even if a government had only one law, it would be, "You have to pay your taxes."

A while back I introduced an idea that another member labeled as "Direct Democracy."  It seemed to work better than America's current system, because instead of having a figure head way up top, each citizen would have equal access to creating and passing laws through, say, the Internet, or something to that effect.  However, even if each citizen had an equal say, without anyone on top, you would still have people band together and pass law and someone would have to run the state security and someone or a group of people would still have the power to say "I don't like the mary-jay, so I don't think anyone should be allowed to smoke it," even if the person they were using this force against was a complete and total stranger.  No matter how government acts, it is still violent.  Some governments are less violent than others, but they're all violent.  As I do not feel the need to say you, for example, shouldn't have the right to do whatever it is you like to do, I would expect that you could respect my right, too.  If I happened to think, I dunno, gay marriage was okay, and gays should be allowed to marry, I don't think it's anyone's business but that gay couple whether or not they get married.  Since I'm neither gay or feel the need to marry, I don't understand why I need to voice whether or not it should be allowed.  And even if I felt it was horrendously wrong, because it's against whatever belief system that tells me it is, I don't want to tell those people how to live, because I don't want anyone telling me how to live.

I don't feel this is unnatural.  When I'm at school, I don't attempt to force black people out, just 'cos I don't want them around me.  Heck, posh schools do this anyway, with a screening process.  But the government has done exactly that in the past.  I don't believe it's right to tell Joe in California he can't be Joe because Jill in New York has an issue with it.  Fuck Jill, Joe hasn't done a thing to her, and what Joe's doing does not affect Jill.

[1714700849]

1714700849

[1714700849]

1714700849

[hawkeye]

Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.

Except determinism is true.  At  least as far as we know.  What physical basis is there for free will in a cause and effect universe?

It's got nothing to do with any God (who may or may not exist but probably doesn't).  It's just a reality of the universe we exist in.

It still seems like I have free will.   But then it still feels to me like the sun rises and sets every day too.  Neither one is actually true, they are both just illusions.

[myrkul]

Except you do have free will. Not even the Church claims determinism anymore.

Except determinism is true.  At  least as far as we know.  What physical basis is there for free will in a cause and effect universe?

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

Either way, unless you believe in terminator style time travel, the future and past are both set like a fresh concrete sidewalk. That's just a logical necessity. Something has already predetermined your actions in time logically prior to your existence. So if it's not God, then what is it?

What makes you think the future is set? The past is, certainly. The future has not yet been written. It is determined by our actions in the present. And to prove it, I'm going to influence the future, by getting you to read this sentence.

If time and space are intertwined, then I most certainly do have a reason to believe that the future is just as set as the past, because it's all part of one fabric which we're slowly moving across the surface of. Regardless of your perception of it, everything you would ever do came into existence the "moment" (for a lack of a better term) that the universe appeared from the void. Because one aspect of our universe is the totality of the piece of fabric that we recognize as spacetime. You have no reason to believe that the future doesn't already exist, and every reason to believe that it does. Unless you think that essentially half of the universe doesn't exist until you happen to experience it. (Which is a rather subjectivist view to take.) When time happened, it happened. And everything that happened in time happened. There was nothing that happened that hasn't already happened.


https://i.imgur.com/BqruhnH.gif

Your actions in time logically pre-existed your decision to take those actions. They cannot be changed, because you will always follow them. You always have. You're doing it right now. The particular pattern which the universe somehow managed to take when it came into existence determined it for you. You're just moving along the pattern like water follows the path of least resistance. Just doing things. Sometimes not knowing why. Sometimes thinking you know why. Sometimes wearing a fake mustache and a top hat. Though that last part might just be me. I really need a monocle and a new cane. (My last one broke, long story.)

That doesn't make our personhood or decisions in time any less real, or any less us. Absolute freedom was never the basis of that. We've never had absolute freedom. So if that's the standard, the freedom to determine the future ourselves, then... Well, I guess we're just a bunch of robots after all, as you rhetorically insisted earlier?

[Mike Christ]

If

Well, there's the wrench in your argument, right there. 

[myrkul]

Either way, unless you believe in terminator style time travel, the future and past are both set like a fresh concrete sidewalk. That's just a logical necessity. Something has already predetermined your actions in time logically prior to your existence. So if it's not God, then what is it?

What makes you think the future is set? The past is, certainly. The future has not yet been written. It is determined by our actions in the present. And to prove it, I'm going to influence the future, by getting you to read this sentence.

If time and space are intertwined, then I most certainly do have a reason to believe that the future is just as set as the past, because it's all part of one fabric which we're slowly moving across the surface of. Regardless of your perception of it, everything you would ever do came into existence the "moment" (for a lack of a better term) that the universe appeared from the void. Because one aspect of our universe is the totality of the piece of fabric that we recognize as spacetime. You have no reason to believe that the future doesn't already exist, and every reason to believe that it does. Unless you think that essentially half of the universe doesn't exist until you happen to experience it. (Which is a rather subjectivist view to take.) When time happened, it happened. And everything that happened in time happened. There was nothing that happened that hasn't already happened.

I think you misunderstand time. I don't pretend to understand it fully, either, but time is not a dimension in the same way that the three commonly accepted spacial ones are. You cannot travel back in time, and the only way to travel forward is to wait. Time is more like a measure of the stretching of space. It's an effect that we feel because of increased entropy. We're getting pretty deep into the physics of reality, and it's entirely possible we're over both of our heads, but suffice it to say that though many things are deterministic, I don't consider conscious decision to be one of those things.

[Mike Christ]

and the only way to travel forward is to wait.

Hawking has something to say about that, here.

Apparently, gravity also has an effect on time; if you could spin around a supermassive black hole for a while, time would actually slow down considerably.  But as he's shown, time cannot go backwards at all; that test where if you invite a person in the future who figured out time travel to a party, and then he never shows up. 

[myrkul]

and the only way to travel forward is to wait.

Hawking has something to say about that, here.

Apparently, gravity also has an effect on time; if you could spin around a supermassive black hole for a while, time would actually slow down considerably.

That's just a fancy way of waiting....

Edit:
And come to think of it, if time is simply a measure of space stretching, it makes sense that gravity would slow it down.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

Either way, unless you believe in terminator style time travel, the future and past are both set like a fresh concrete sidewalk. That's just a logical necessity. Something has already predetermined your actions in time logically prior to your existence. So if it's not God, then what is it?

What makes you think the future is set? The past is, certainly. The future has not yet been written. It is determined by our actions in the present. And to prove it, I'm going to influence the future, by getting you to read this sentence.

If time and space are intertwined, then I most certainly do have a reason to believe that the future is just as set as the past, because it's all part of one fabric which we're slowly moving across the surface of. Regardless of your perception of it, everything you would ever do came into existence the "moment" (for a lack of a better term) that the universe appeared from the void. Because one aspect of our universe is the totality of the piece of fabric that we recognize as spacetime. You have no reason to believe that the future doesn't already exist, and every reason to believe that it does. Unless you think that essentially half of the universe doesn't exist until you happen to experience it. (Which is a rather subjectivist view to take.) When time happened, it happened. And everything that happened in time happened. There was nothing that happened that hasn't already happened.

I think you misunderstand time. I don't pretend to understand it fully, either, but time is not a dimension in the same way that the three commonly accepted spacial ones are. You cannot travel back in time, and the only way to travel forward is to wait. Time is more like a measure of the stretching of space. It's an effect that we feel because of increased entropy. We're getting pretty deep into the physics of reality, and it's entirely possible we're over both of our heads, but suffice it to say that though many things are deterministic, I don't consider conscious decision to be one of those things.

Okay, fair enough. It's not really a big deal anyway.

[Walter Rothbard]

Was this supposed to refute anything?  Epic fail.  Your whole argument amounts to expressing your opinion about the way things should be and then saying it should be that way.

i have never claimed that i was not biased(i think...). whats your problem? libertards are libertards.

And statists are emotionless sociopaths.

You must've missed a whole lot of debating last year. Myrkul and Co. have been debunked hundreds of times on dozens of counts -- his Anarcho-Capitalism stuff is so full of holes it's like Swiss cheese (but smells more like Raclette). His whole zero government argument basically boils down to hating taxation, attaching emotional labels like 'theft' and 'violence' because he was "brutally born into an existing system" rather than politely asked "would His Highness like to voluntarily participate in society like everyone else?"

There are always plenty of exceptions (like military stuff) but loads of government services like education, health care etc., can easily justified from a moral standpoint. E.g.:

• public education: some children have incompetent parents who would be useless at home schooling. Home-schooling also sounds extremely inefficient compared to at least learning in groups (I guess some people have too much money...).
• public healthcare: various vulnerable groups exist (e.g.: sick children, mentally disabled, victims of freak accidents, the elderly) and basic human values suggest that help should be given even if there's no capital advantage or foreseeable profit motive.
• 'home' care: orphanages, homeless shelters, homes for the elderly, etc.
• A justice system with a 3rd party that can be either impartial (not being paid by either side), or, more often: represent the potential hidden victim (society at large).

The above examples should be self-explanatory, but for die-hard Anarchy fanboys like Myrkul, they're not. There's always some half-baked retort that has been prepared earlier on just about everything imaginable.

• Workable justice system in An-Cap? BAM! Arbitration! They're never able to explain how it would actually work and why it wouldn't be utterly corrupt by design. It's just supposed to vaguely somehow kind-of resemble mostly unrelated international trade arbitration.
• All those other social needs described above? BAM! Charities and volunteers! Ad hoc and unmetered donations by a small segment of society ought to cover it!

There were even some threads where the Anarchists were OK with human slavery and trafficking because it was just a side-effect of "free market" contracts. Thus it's the Anarchists who come across as cold-blooded psychos. Because Bitcoin kind-of relies on the Libertarian religion to incubate it, a nasty side-effect is that (rather than just supporting Bitcoin) there's so much Libertarian and Anarchy evangelism all over the forum. Hence the need for a sticky thread to contain the contagion!

[Walter Rothbard]

there's so much Libertarian and Anarchy evangelism all over the forum. Hence the need for a sticky thread to contain the contagion!

I repeat my request that all support for the state be confined to one sticky thread.  This ought to go both ways, after all.

And personally I don't care about evangelizing anybody.  I simply ask that people withdraw their support for any force used to curtain my liberties, just as you would not support a cop who would arrest Rosa Parks for sitting in the whites only section of a bus or (hopefully) would not cheer a cop for arresting someone for marijuana possession or homosexual activity.

[Walter Rothbard]

• Workable justice system in An-Cap? BAM! Arbitration! They're never able to explain how it would actually work and why it wouldn't be utterly corrupt by design. It's just supposed to vaguely somehow kind-of resemble mostly unrelated international trade arbitration.

Actually there's extensive literature explaining how private justice works.  A good example is the Libertarian Manifesto by Rothbard.  But most people who want to argue on forums aren't interested in familiarizing themselves with the opposition's educated representatives and their lines of thought.[/list]

[Walter Rothbard]

If you're okay with violence being used against me if I, say, avoided the draft, then by all means, carry on with your way of thinking.  Statists agree that violence is the answer.  You're okay with me dying for your narrow-minded view of how everyone should act (within a plot of land with imaginary borders.)

Statists are sociopaths.  Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it.  Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.

(I came here for the Bitcoin, and I stayed because I liked the posts like this.)

[Walter Rothbard]

Yet Americans and many others strongly desire this 'freedom'. It must be a very scarce commodity. From the outside it seems clear that the US government is just a side-effect of its people and their attitudes.

I'm quite confused: a dominating, murdering, immoral empire is a side-effect of libertarian attitudes?  Or are you making the case that Americans are not libertarian (because I could believe that.0

Until you find a way to explain how the state is not the focal point of systematic violence, I don't want to hear it.  Nothing else matters if this point is not touched.

In the US' case it's probably way past the point of no return, and there might be some kind of economic collapse, war, civil war, states breaking away etc. It could be sudden, or maybe the country will continue to get ransacked for a few more years (everyone gradually bails; last one turn out the lights plz). But in general, I'd say governments are a reflection of society, and if society is able to look in the mirror, it should be possible to keep the admin side reasonably honest and sane. I suspect there are also game theory arguments as to why large country-sized crowds would tend to evolve in ways that always result in some kind of government-like structure, but that only explains why governments seem unavoidable.

You left Mike's quoted point untouched.

[kokjo]

Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?

If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?

Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state.

And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans.

if you accept this "fact", you must accept that humans are too. humans are only a really complex one, but both me and the robot are build from atoms.

[JimmiesForBitcoins]

Can it be their decision, if God had decreed, long before they were even born, that they would make it?

If I program a robot to kill someone, who do we punish?

Yes, because humans are operating in accordance with their nature, which has been radically altered from its created state.

And your example is not analogous. Robots cannot make decisions because there's nothing there. It's just an empty shell. Again, I direct you to Romans.

if you accept this "fact", you must accept that humans are too. humans are only a really complex one, but both me and the robot are build from atoms.

No, no. That's far too absolute a statement for you. You can't know that because you've claimed that objectivity is illusory, remember? You have no way of knowing whether or not humans actually exist, much less what they would be made of, and even less what it would be like to be one. You just think they exist. You can't even be sure that you're actually human. Maybe you're a predator brain in a vat that just thinks it's human? Heck, you could be a sentient ham sandwich. Maybe.

[myrkul]

Yet Americans and many others strongly desire this 'freedom'. It must be a very scarce commodity. From the outside it seems clear that the US government is just a side-effect of its people and their attitudes.

I'm quite confused: a dominating, murdering, immoral empire is a side-effect of libertarian attitudes?

More like fundamentalism in general. Libertarianism is just one ideology out of many that seem susceptible to manipulation.
E.g.: take a "tragedy of the Commons" argument. All that Capitalistic individualism seems to invite those sorts of problems.

Tragedy of the commons is only a problem if there is a commons.

[Mike Christ]

I'm still not hearing "No, statists are not sociopathic proxy killers, because:"

Stop dancing around the issue.  Do you, or do you not, agree that you or I need to die to make sure everyone plays to the same rules?  This is the very core of the state, that gooey chocolaty center.  I don't want to talk about "Well this issue with corporatism" or "We're not really slaves because such and such."  I want to hear you say, "I understand the state, this is what it does, and upon understanding that violence is not only encouraged, but vital, for the state to exist, I have determined that I agree with/disagree with the state and its course of action."  Until we make this point absolutely clear, we cannot proceed to nit-pick at individual issues.  Let's zoom out and figure this very basic part out first.

Are you okay with violence being used against me, even when I have not provoked it?

[kokjo]

I'm still not hearing "No, statists are not sociopathic proxy killers, because:"

Stop dancing around the issue.  Do you, or do you not, agree that you or I need to die to make sure everyone plays to the same rules?  This is the very core of the state, that gooey chocolaty center.  I don't want to talk about "Well this issue with corporatism" or "We're not really slaves because such and such."  I want to hear you say, "I understand the state, this is what it does, and upon understanding that violence is not only encouraged, but vital, for the state to exist, I have determined that I agree with/disagree with the state and its course of action."  Until we make this point absolutely clear, we cannot proceed to nit-pick at individual issues.  Let's zoom out and figure this very basic part out first.

Are you okay with violence being used against me, even when I have not provoked it?

but you have, by not following the rules.

[Mike Christ]

but you have, by not following the rules.

So if I was sitting in my home, minding my own business, and then someone burst in and said, "GIVE ME ALL YOUR MONEY OR YOU WILL GO TO JAIL, AND IF YOU RESIST I WILL KILL YOU"

It's okay if it's a law.  So how's the box working out for ya?