Politics does not matter. Only power.

[Elwar]

Whatever your political point of view, whether we need this or that, whether the government should do something about whatever or not. Whether we should be involved in whichever thing or ignore it. It does not matter. All that matters is power.

We are fooling ourselves if we believe that anything can be changed in Washington that would give power back to the people, or if that power would remain. An anarchist/libertarian society? Forget it. A communist utopia? Only if people are slaves to the masters with power.

When it comes down to it, we live in an anarchist, survival of the fittest world. But when people think of such a world they think of preppers with guns killing weaker people for their supplies and surviving because they have more guns or are stronger or whichever.

But the reality is that all things equal, two people are more powerful than one. So the two people have more power than that one person and can pretty much tell that one person how they should live. Unless that one person finds two other people so that it is three against two. Then they can determine what everyone should do. And on and on, the groups getting bigger, the power growing within each group. 1000 people against 500 people, the 1000 people get to decide how society works. All the way to millions of people with a huge military and nuclear weapons. How could you possibly think you can get the power back to that one person?

But the thing about that is that those large groups of people join forces to protect themselves from other groups, but within the group there are groups of people with more power than the rest. So even if you do not agree with what those with more power in your group want to do, your only other option is no protection.

Was our country founded on ideas alone? Or did they have more power than the British? The huge amount of effort it required for the British to send ships to America and fight a far off war caused their ideas to become the losing ideas. Not the merit of the politics, but the fact that we won the war. We displayed our power. Is democracy the best way to run a government? Is that why all of these countries are becoming democratic? Or does it have something to do with the most power country in the world flexing its muscles and pushing it on nations?

In a way, libertarians in the US are fighting a far more difficult battle than if they were in some small country with a tiny military force.

Your political ideology will only work if it includes a more powerful force than the current one in place. Giving power back to the people is great, as long as your political system has a way for them to all join that power together to fight a larger force. And that means, at this stage in human technological advances, being more powerful than a full on nuclear strike. And if your political ideology can do that, you need to make sure someone cannot control all of that power to take control of those that combined their power.

Of course, power is not just guns and bullets. It includes money. And I believe Bitcoins can help in that piece of the puzzle.

[btc4ever]

Well said.

I have often pondered the notion that we are living in the natural conclusion an anarchist state.  Ie, the strongest wins.  And it will always be so, though it will take different forms.

A counterpoint however is that if we look at history, we can see that forward motion has been made, and not always linearly.  I think most would agree that society has advanced beyond feudalism.  ie, it was not a lateral or backwards step from feudalism to democracy.  Yet if you could talk to the average person living in a feudal society 900 years ago, they probably would have trouble even conceiving of a democratic society and its implications.  Or if they could, they would laugh at you and say that such a utopia will never happen.  The lords and kings would never permit it.

So thinking about it that way encourages me that there is hope for a better tomorrow, for improvement of the human condition and societal organization.  Perhaps cryptocurrencies will be the sword that finally strikes a mighty blow at the root of centralized power:  control over money.

When that day comes, we may have set the stage for a new type of society, as different from today as we are from the dark ages.   perhaps even a voluntaryist one.

[Spendulus]

...
So thinking about it that way encourages me that there is hope for a better tomorrow, for improvement of the human condition and societal organization.  Perhaps cryptocurrencies will be the sword that finally strikes a mighty blow at the root of centralized power:  control over money....

Yes, it could certainly be. 

For sure, in numerous third world counties in which such dire straits and corruption exist that there is no way Paypal could get established there, and hence, Amazon or Ebay cannot exist there.

Beyond those situations, where a separate private currency has obvious advantages (yes I am talking about someone in the US trading directly with someone in Kenya, etc) it is not so clear.

Would the emergence of a crypto currency in the USA say to the extent of 10% of paypal transactions  cause fundamental social or political change?  If so, how and what?

[DumbFruit]

The mistake you're making is that you're saying that the way people interact with one another is deterministic; That the antisocial people will always coalesce in any given homogeneous society to form States.
All you have to do is look around to see that there is nothing deterministic about how humans interact with one another. Sometimes they are largely free, America between 1800 and 1900 (or maybe more pessimistically; 1783-1860), sometimes they're fascist, like Nazi Germany, and sometimes they're totalitarian, like Russia under Stalin.
The key point that anyone should be able to take from the Socialist/Communist experiments of the 1900's is that a village idiot (Karl Marx/Vladimir Lenin) can have a profound effect on the way people treat one another.
If a moron on a typewriter can instigate the deaths of tens of millions of people, it seems obvious that the inverse could also happen; A society could form around the ideas of people that are actually economically literate, like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hoppe, etc and have a prosperous society.

Now, it can't be denied that violent societies have inevitably formed over the centuries. There has never been a large anarchistic society that has existed for any decent length of time. Defined perhaps like this;

An anarchist society is one in which there is free entry into the means of production and decision making of any field or geographical location.

("Free" only meaning that there are no predetermined rules; Only the voluntary interaction between participants in the society.)

The reason holding onto an anarchistic society is so difficult, besides the aforementioned ignorance, is simply that coercion is profitable.

Interestingly, with Bitcoin, coercion becomes less profitable. If a society were to adopt Bitcoin as its medium of exchange, it would necessarily mean the reduction of the State.

TLDR;
So in short, I'd say the optimum allocation of resources is seemingly inevitably subverted by the State because of a lack of education of the society on accurate economics, as well as the inherent profitability of coercion.
Saying that we already live in an anarchistic society, and that power is everything is a bit too simplistic and defeatist.

[Elwar]

The mistake you're making is that you're saying that the way people interact with one another is deterministic; That the antisocial people will always coalesce in any given homogeneous society to form States.
All you have to do is look around to see that there is nothing deterministic about how humans interact with one another. Sometimes they are largely free, America between 1800 and 1900 (or maybe more pessimistically; 1783-1860), sometimes they're fascist, like Nazi Germany, and sometimes they're totalitarian, like Russia under Stalin.
The key point that anyone should be able to take from the Socialist/Communist experiments of the 1900's is that a village idiot (Karl Marx/Vladimir Lenin) can have a profound effect on the way people treat one another.
If a moron on a typewriter can instigate the deaths of tens of millions of people, it seems obvious that the inverse could also happen; A society could form around the ideas of people that are actually economically literate, like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hoppe, etc and have a prosperous society.

Now, it can't be denied that violent societies have inevitably formed over the centuries. There has never been a large anarchistic society that has existed for any decent length of time. Defined perhaps like this;

An anarchist society is one in which there is free entry into the means of production and decision making of any field or geographical location.

("Free" only meaning that there are no predetermined rules; Only the voluntary interaction between participants in the society.)

The reason holding onto an anarchistic society is so difficult, besides the aforementioned ignorance, is simply that coercion is profitable.

Interestingly, with Bitcoin, coercion becomes less profitable. If a society were to adopt Bitcoin as its medium of exchange, it would necessarily mean the reduction of the State.

TLDR;
So in short, I'd say the optimum allocation of resources is seemingly inevitably subverted by the State because of a lack of education of the society on accurate economics, as well as the inherent profitability of coercion.
Saying that we already live in an anarchistic society, and that power is everything is a bit too simplistic and defeatist.

I was not saying that we live in an anarchistic society, but an anarchist, survival of the fittest world. If you plop everyone down onto this world as babies they are not born with "inherent rights" or "natural laws". They have no laws whatsoever. That is anarchy by definition. As the babies grow and begin to form groups, those with the power will be the ones to determine which laws are in place and those without power will be doomed to follow the laws of those in power.

Sure, history shows that sometimes we move toward a more free society through some social upheaval such as the Revolutionary War and rebellions. But that is the thing, only 10% of American society actually agreed with those who revolted against the British but those 10% had enough power to put their ideas at the forefront and win the war and thus holding that same power they were able to implement their ideals (because they had the power). Imagine if all of the US military were libertarians and the top libertarian general one day decided that the US should be libertarian. It would not take long for the US to then become libertarian. Because of the power.

But just as with the United States, that power was passed on to people who did not share that same revolutionary spirit. Our forefathers retired and the other 90% worked their way into positions of authority, thus bringing us back to the original ideals of Britain that we had fought against.

So if there is ever another revolution or push toward freedom. Just keep in mind that it will need to ensure that those who support freedom are kept in charge of the power, for generations. Thomas Jefferson's plan to do this was saying that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.". This did not happen.

[DumbFruit]

Sure, history shows that sometimes we move toward a more free society through some social upheaval such as the Revolutionary War and rebellions. But that is the thing, only 10% of American society actually agreed with those who revolted against the British but those 10% had enough power to put their ideas at the forefront and win the war and thus holding that same power they were able to implement their ideals (because they had the power). Imagine if all of the US military were libertarians and the top libertarian general one day decided that the US should be libertarian. It would not take long for the US to then become libertarian. Because of the power.

I don't know where you're getting that 10%, but I'll accept it as a rhetorical device.

It can't have moved toward a more libertarian society if not even those 10% knew what freedom meant. So clearly even in that situation, education performed a vital role.

It seems like you want to ignore all the causal factors that led up to the concentration of power in the wrong hands and say that the power in those hands is all that really matters. The power and those who wield it are a symptom of educational, cultural, and technological problems.

[crumbs]

...
The key point that anyone should be able to take from the Socialist/Communist experiments of the 1900's is that a village idiot (Karl Marx/Vladimir Lenin) can have a profound effect on the way people treat one another.

"Village idiot"? 
Marx: Born to a wealthy family, studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin.
Lenin:  Born to a wealthy family, law degree.
Laern 2 raed.

If a moron on a typewriter can instigate the deaths of tens of millions of people,

WTF are you talking about?  Who?

it seems obvious that the inverse could also happen; A society could form around the ideas of people that are actually economically literate, like Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, Hans Hoppe, etc and have a prosperous society.

Now, it can't be denied that violent societies have inevitably formed over the centuries. There has never been a large anarchistic society that has existed for any decent length of time. Defined perhaps like this;

An anarchist society is one in which there is free entry into the means of production and decision making of any field or geographical location.

("Free" only meaning that there are no predetermined rules; Only the voluntary interaction between participants in the society.)

The reason holding onto an anarchistic society is so difficult, besides the aforementioned ignorance, is simply that coercion is profitable.

Interestingly, with Bitcoin, coercion becomes less profitable. If a society were to adopt Bitcoin as its medium of exchange, it would necessarily mean the reduction of the State.

TLDR;
So in short, I'd say the optimum allocation of resources is seemingly inevitably subverted by the State because of a lack of education of the society on accurate economics, as well as the inherent profitability of coercion.
Saying that we already live in an anarchistic society, and that power is everything is a bit too simplistic and defeatist.

This is incoherent verbiage.  Word salad -- dumb assumptions tossed with fail & aids and served on a bed of fresh non-sequiturs.  Go, Dog, Go.

[Elwar]

It can't have moved toward a more libertarian society if not even those 10% knew what freedom meant. So clearly even in that situation, education performed a vital role.

It seems like you want to ignore all the causal factors that led up to the concentration of power in the wrong hands and say that the power in those hands is all that really matters. The power and those who wield it are a symptom of educational, cultural, and technological problems.

I agree with everything you said. It did require education for people to understand what liberty meant. There were many popular writings before the revolution, and I would say that Ben Franklin's printing press probably played a huge role in getting such ideas out to the people in as revolutionary a way as the Internet is doing today.

Education, culture and technology can tip the scale back in favor of putting the power back into the hands of the people. But they have to organize, and to organize that tends to mean concentrating their power.

[DumbFruit]

Oh Christ on a stick, it looks like I've riled up the local Marxism apologist.

Please Crumbs, tell me again how Capitalism is the root of all evil, and how everyone just needs to give up money and stop being so greedy all the time.

http://mises.org/media/6225/Socialism-Utopia-and-Reality

Tell me how Capitalism wastes resources, and how they're always in it for sure term gains at the expense of future generations.

http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/25/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/04/ralph-r-reiland/shoot-shovel-shut-up/

Oh I know! Tell me how USSR and Nazi Germany weren't really Communists, they were totalitarian dictatorships totally misrepresenting what Lenin and Marx stood for.

http://mises.org/daily/6066/

Please, oh wise one, tell us how if we just tried your Socialism the right way, how everything would be great this time.

http://mises.org/pdf/econcalc.pdf

Share some more of your thoroughly debunked bullshit, I just can't wait to read it!

"Village idiot"?  
Marx: Born to a wealthy family, studied at the University of Bonn and the University of Berlin.
Lenin:  Born to a wealthy family, law degree.

Oh wow, how impressive. Why don't you look up the history of Ludwig von Mises, or Murray Rothbard?

Marx and Lenin were comparatively village idiots.

Education, culture and technology can tip the scale back in favor of putting the power back into the hands of the people. But they have to organize, and to organize that tends to mean concentrating their power.

I don't think there's anything wrong with concentration of power persay. It can simply be the rational way to operate. Imagine if the governments in the world tried to break up Intel and AMD. The lengthy development time, and incredibly capital requirements means these businesses just happen to get huge.

Why do you think that power gets in the wrong hands, and what would you suggest could defeat it?

Also, I think that touches on a major issue in the Bitcoin community. They tend to be way too focused on "decentralization", but the key phrase should be "freedom of entry", but I guess that's off topic..

[FirstAscent]

Tell me how Capitalism wastes resources, and how they're always in it for sure term gains at the expense of future generations.

Are you serious? You can't figure this one out on your own? Free market forces guarantee picking the lowest hanging fruit until near the point of exhaustion. But the real problem is where free market zealots can't distinguish between natural resources which undergo irreversible transformation upon consumption and products which are manufactured from sustainable resources. One behaves according to the econ 101 supply and demand curve, and the other does not.

Here's some advice: stop treating your favorite libertarian playbook as if it were your bible, and start learning about the dynamics of resources and consumption.

[DumbFruit]

Free market forces guarantee picking the lowest hanging fruit until near the point of exhaustion.

What are you even talking about? Do you propose a system that first picks the highest hanging fruit? Do you like working just for the sake of work?

Economic calculation has determined that the value gained by "irreversibly" changing an object outweighs the cost of the landfill and the cost of making said object. Why is your judgement any better than the free market? Why are you any better at allocating resources over those people that actually work and specialize in their relevant industries, and make these decisions every day?

http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/25/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/04/ralph-r-reiland/shoot-shovel-shut-up/

[FirstAscent]

Free market forces guarantee picking the lowest hanging fruit until near the point of exhaustion.

What are you even talking about? Do you propose a system that first picks the highest hanging fruit? Do you like working just for the sake of work?

Economic calculation has determined that the value gained by "irreversibly" changing an object outweighs the cost of the landfill and the cost of making said object. Why is your judgement any better than the free market? Why are you any better at allocating resources over those people that actually work and specialize in their relevant industries, that make these decisions every day?

http://mises.org/community/blogs/tokyotom/archive/2009/05/25/capitalism-the-destructive-exploitation-of-the-amazon-and-the-tragedy-of-the-government-owned-commons.aspx

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2004/04/ralph-r-reiland/shoot-shovel-shut-up/

Stop pulling material from your favorite libertarian site and start focusing on educating yourself instead. You can't think clearly, independently, or objectively if you continue to source your learning from biased thinking.

[DumbFruit]

Stop pulling material from your favorite libertarian site and start focusing on educating yourself instead. You can't think clearly, independently, or objectively if you continue to source your learning from biased thinking.

Translation: "I don't agree with you, so you must be biased. Excuse me while I don't read any opposing argument presented to me."

[FirstAscent]

Stop pulling material from your favorite libertarian site and start focusing on educating yourself instead. You can't think clearly, independently, or objectively if you continue to source your learning from biased thinking.

Translation: "I don't agree with you, so you must be biased. Excuse me while I don't read any opposing argument presented to me."

You're not just biased. By sourcing your learning as you are, you're denying yourself a complete picture of the world. Now, if you wish to provide a well formed argument against what I have said in the last few posts, I will be glad to point out the deficiencies in your thought processes.

[DumbFruit]

You're not just biased. By sourcing your learning as you are, you're denying yourself a complete picture of the world. Now, if you wish to provide a well formed argument against what I have said in the last few posts, I will be glad to point out the deficiencies in your thought processes.

Are we on an episode of the Twilight Zone? I already pointed out to you why it's wrong to state that Capitalism wastes natural resources.

You're begging the question, "How is your system any better?" It's fine to look at a scarce resource and say, "This resource is scarce.", but you a haven't made the case that;

1.) It should be used less.
2.) Reducing its use by coercion is actually possible.
3.) It can be used in a better way.
4.) You're qualified to make such a judgement.
Edit:
5.) That you can't do it in a Capitalist society.

Capitalism, through competition, places those that are most competent at the helm of the resources in which they specialize, and rewards their successes, which is determined by meeting consumer demand. Just as it should be.

[FirstAscent]

You're not just biased. By sourcing your learning as you are, you're denying yourself a complete picture of the world. Now, if you wish to provide a well formed argument against what I have said in the last few posts, I will be glad to point out the deficiencies in your thought processes.

Are we on an episode of the Twilight Zone? I already pointed out to you why it's wrong to state that Capitalism destroys natural resources.

You're begging the question, "How is your system any better?" It's fine to look at a scarce resource and say, "This resource is scarce.", but you a haven't made the case that;

1.) It should be used less.
2.) Reducing its use by coercion is actually possible.
3.) It can be used in a better way.
4.) You're qualified to make such a judgement.

Do you even understand how the standard supply and demand curve breaks down for certain natural resources?

[DumbFruit]

Do you even understand how the standard supply and demand curve breaks down for certain natural resources?

Ya. And?

Supply is finite, demand is infinite, the supply/demand curve intersect at the market clearing price. What's your point?

[FirstAscent]

Do you even understand how the standard supply and demand curve breaks down for certain natural resources?

Ya. And?

Supply is finite, demand is infinite, the supply/demand curve intersect at the market clearing price. What's your point?

Do you subscribe to the theory that as a resource dwindles, it's price goes up to the point that it will be conserved due to its high price?

[DumbFruit]

Ya. And? You don't think I've answered your question, but I have...

[FirstAscent]

Ya. And? You don't think I've answered your question, but I have...

So then you don't fully understand how the supply and demand curve breaks down for resources which undergo an irreversible transformation upon consumption then. Correct?