Bitcoin Forum
December 03, 2016, 02:48:49 AM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Re: The Free State Project (split)  (Read 5416 times)
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 05:03:02 AM
 #21

I should add that all media, being corporate controlled, is party to corporate propaganda. I don't know why anyone thinks I like the NYTimes -- my ideas are in discord with the establishment doctrine put forth my what are called "liberal" newspapers. These news companies cover news in predictable ways, corresponding to their respective audiences and advertisers. It seems it is an easy label (reader of X) to apply to people who disagree with you. I've been called a reader/watcher of everything from Fox to WSJ to NYTimes to you name it. This is basic tribalism: same teenager thought process in play. I don't take offense to it -- same way I don't get upset when babies cry. This is to be expected.

All mainstream media are very sophisticated propaganda machine. The only difference is who you think the propaganda is intended for.

Most of humanity only read what they wanted to read and what agree with their views. If the news did not say what the masses think the world should be, the mainstream news will be forced out of the market.

Quote
And I noticed that nobody has even attempted to address the points regarding the Koch bros. I'll repeat that they aren't the only ones doing this kind of thing. I am sorry to say that the whole libertarian movement is a farce being perpetrated by those with huge amounts of money and influence. The good news is that it's never too late to realize that you are being duped.

The problem with your statement is that libertarians fight over each other who is the most idealogical pure. I remember hearing some libertarian diss the Koch bros or complaining something about them.

The kind of infighting makes it hard to perpetrated any sort of control over an entire group of people. Even though this community contains lot of libertarians, most of our comrades don't want to join the bitcoin cause. As you can see, the infighting makes it hard for us to organize politically.

1480733329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733329
Reply with quote  #2

1480733329
Report to moderator
1480733329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733329
Reply with quote  #2

1480733329
Report to moderator
1480733329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733329
Reply with quote  #2

1480733329
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1480733329
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1480733329

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1480733329
Reply with quote  #2

1480733329
Report to moderator
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 05:12:57 AM
 #22

Because until such a time as private power can be kept in check without a mediating force, expect to be taken advantage of by private power. Democracy is the best way we know of to handle this problem. Democracy gives each person equal power. Markets assign power based on money.

Cartels in free market are known to fall apart. They're unsustainable due to the force of competition.

Quote
Um, private "security" (mercs). This is so obvious as to be embarrassing. It has happened before and will happen again. Concentration of power and capital does not require a state.

Good for you. Libertarian literature had much to say about how they think private defense agencies will work.

Quote
BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAA. Oh. Oh. Flying cars... ok, I'm better now.

If you do not wish to discuss this seriously, by all means continue to laugh. However, mocking the other side's points and belief does not contribute to change in position.

Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 11:10:29 AM
 #23

This is why I never argue with statists . The only answer they have is to laugh at you as they get a proxy to take all of your property by force.

In b4  you are paying tax for people  with luxury cars to take their kids to public schools.
lumos
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 160



View Profile
February 09, 2011, 01:03:51 PM
 #24

is there not a way to be anti-statist and support taxes, voluntary taxes like an investment scheme, opt in or opt out.
Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 01:30:35 PM
 #25

is there not a way to be anti-statist and support taxes, voluntary taxes like an investment scheme, opt in or opt out.

Its fine if everyone agrees and wants to have a government...its when you refuse that the problem begins.

With government there is no opt-out clause. They say if you dont like it then leave but if that is not a viable option you are no better than a slave.

So gene what would you do to me if i refused to participate in your society ?
Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 01:44:39 PM
 #26

I really hope there is more reasoning that goes into a statist perspective than what appears on the surface.
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 01:58:10 PM
 #27

I really hope there is more reasoning that goes into a statist perspective than what appears on the surface.

So we're all agreeing that gene is not a real anarchist?

Well anybody who laugh at the idea of taxation as evil is a statist in my book.

Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 02:00:22 PM
 #28

I really hope there is more reasoning that goes into a statist perspective than what appears on the surface.

So we're all agreeing that gene is just a statist, and not a real anarchist, of any variety?
"Concentration of power and capital does not require a state."

I think this rules out all of the anarchos.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 02:16:13 PM
 #29

You see those red European cities? I believe that is what libertarians call "socialist, fascist, communist, statist..." They could have expanded outwards into suburbs in the 60s and 70s. But they didn't. Wonder why.

I take no view either way about most things (healthcare, public safety), but over regulation of city development is most definitely bad. It's because the US regulations for city development are a ton more stringent than here in Europe.

Go to any pre-communist country and you'll see everywhere filled with huge motorways and nameless grey office blocks. Those kinds of cities are depressing for the people that live in them because there's very little variety as they're sheep herded around the city.

All the most famous European cities (Prague, Krakow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Rome, Sofia, ...) are built around an old pedestrian city centre with the format of: main high street (usually without cars), monument (marker for orienting yourself) and park/greenery. That's natural development. Suburban cities have no such structure.

You could draw an analogy here with if the internet was centrally controlled. Websites were 'allocated' and required strict planning permissions instead of evolving naturally to fit a need.
ribuck
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 826


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 02:40:06 PM
 #30

The United Kingdom today has incredibly restrictive planning laws. People love the old city centres, but you could never get permission to build anything similar today. Doesn't meet planning requirements for car parking and disabled access, and has too many big windows pointing in the "wrong" directions.
Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 02:42:33 PM
 #31

You see those red European cities? I believe that is what libertarians call "socialist, fascist, communist, statist..." They could have expanded outwards into suburbs in the 60s and 70s. But they didn't. Wonder why.

I take no view either way about most things (healthcare, public safety), but over regulation of city development is most definitely bad. It's because the US regulations for city development are a ton more stringent than here in Europe.

Go to any pre-communist country and you'll see everywhere filled with huge motorways and nameless grey office blocks. Those kinds of cities are depressing for the people that live in them because there's very little variety as they're sheep herded around the city.

All the most famous European cities (Prague, Krakow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Rome, Sofia, ...) are built around an old pedestrian city centre with the format of: main high street (usually without cars), monument (marker for orienting yourself) and park/greenery. That's natural development. Suburban cities have no such structure.

You could draw an analogy here with if the internet was centrally controlled. Websites were 'allocated' and required strict planning permissions instead of evolving naturally to fit a need.


You dodged my question. What would you do to people who dont want to join your society or participate in its existence ?
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 03:07:34 PM
 #32

you quoted genjix not gene
Anonymous
Guest

February 09, 2011, 03:38:44 PM
 #33

you quoted genjix not gene

Ah sorry genjix.
gene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 06:17:17 PM
 #34

Statist. What an awesome word. Grin

Quote
Cartels in free market are known to fall apart. They're unsustainable due to the force of competition.

This has not been shown. This is repeatedly conjectured (no evidence) by the fine people at mises.org. Also, companies don't actually like competition, which is why they spend so much time and money trying to distort markets. So the conditions which are supposed to foster this fabled competition don't even exist. They definitely won't exist if it is up to them. So this argument, which is critical for everything else that supposedly follows, falls pathetically flat.

Quote
Good for you. Libertarian literature had much to say about how they think private defense agencies will work.

This "literature" amounts to what is essentially an echo chamber of unsubstantiated conjecture. Funded by the likes of the Koch bros, let's not forget. Propaganda which teenaged suburbia dwellers and middle-aged white men just eat right up. This is not meant as an ad-hominem, incidentally. Those are perhaps the most important target demographics for this sort of claptrap, as professed by the spinmasters themselves.

Quote
If you do not wish to discuss this seriously, by all means continue to laugh. However, mocking the other side's points and belief does not contribute to change in position.

He was being serious?  He did mention flying cars, didn't he? Roll Eyes

Quote
So gene what would you do to me if i refused to participate in your society ?

Probably what happens to shut-ins and recluses today. They languish in isolation. Or they write existential poetry. Most people won't care if you refuse to participate, as you're not controlling some important resource.

Now, if rich people, who made their money in large part because of favorable conditions established by society, don't want to give back to that society, then they will have to answer to their peers. Here is what separates you and me: I trust people to make the proper choices. In the old days, they used to tar and feather those people. I don't think that would happen today, but most likely, rich people who refuse to give anything back (via taxes) would have to face fines. This seems reasonable to most people and to me. It fits the offense.

Quote
So we're all agreeing that gene is not a real anarchist?

Well anybody who laugh at the idea of taxation as evil is a statist in my book.

This is my favorite (semi-incoherent) quote in this thread.

Quote
"Concentration of power and capital does not require a state."

I think this rules out all of the anarchos.

Statements of fact don't say much about the person who utters them. I'll also note that the irresistible impulse to affix appellations is symptomatic of the tribalism I mentioned earlier.

Quote
I take no view either way about most things (healthcare, public safety), but over regulation of city development is most definitely bad. It's because the US regulations for city development are a ton more stringent than here in Europe.

Demonstrably untrue. Houston is a glaringly obvious example.

Quote
Go to any pre-communist country and you'll see everywhere filled with huge motorways and nameless grey office blocks. Those kinds of cities are depressing for the people that live in them because there's very little variety as they're sheep herded around the city.

I'm not sure what you mean by "pre-communist" or what this has to do with the fact that public transportation and roads are funded via taxes. You are not providing any instance of a functional system of privately-owned transportation infrastructure. Nobody here has. I think we know why.

Look, for all of you who hate roads, just build your flying car and have at it. Just don't expect any tax-funded air traffic controllers to help you navigate or tax-funded paramedics/firemen to scrape your body from the impact site when you realize what "an herioc" idea it truly was.

Sorry, the "jetsons" image just makes me mock like a mofo.

Quote
All the most famous European cities (Prague, Krakow, Belgrade, Barcelona, Rome, Sofia, ...) are built around an old pedestrian city centre with the format of: main high street (usually without cars), monument (marker for orienting yourself) and park/greenery. That's natural development. Suburban cities have no such structure.

With respect to urban sprawl, you're providing the perfect instance to make my point. Thank you. Grin

Quote
You could draw an analogy here with if the internet was centrally controlled. Websites were 'allocated' and required strict planning permissions instead of evolving naturally to fit a need.

And yet, this is precisely the sort of central planning that large media conglomerates are currently trying to establish. They are openly planning on how to control the infrastructure (paid for by taxes, of course) so as to allow them to double-bill media "producers" and "consumers." To try to make the internet just like cable television. Thank you again. Grin

*processing payment* *error 404 : funds not found*
Do you want to complain on the forum just to fall for another scam a few days later?
| YES       |        YES |
kiba
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 980


View Profile
February 09, 2011, 06:35:52 PM
 #35


This has not been shown. This is repeatedly conjectured (no evidence) by the fine people at mises.org. Also, companies don't actually like competition, which is why they spend so much time and money trying to distort markets. So the conditions for which foster this fabled competition don't even exist. They definitely won't exist if it is up to them. So this argument, which is critical for everything else that supposedly follows, falls pathetically flat.
.

Competition is the best weapon for combating abuses by private powers. Look at the cellular industry. Google dragged cellular network providers kicking and screaming to providing better plans to android users. It's not impossible to bring competition in this skewed environment as google have shown.

It will be a lot easier to introduce competition in an environment where corporations will borne the cost of warring by themselves and where privilege and monopoly are not as widespread.

This is how agorists(I am NOT one because I am a chicken) combat abuses, by counter-economic revolutionary activities.

Anonymous
Guest

February 10, 2011, 02:41:08 AM
 #36

Whats to laugh at ?

http://www.moller.com/

Quote
New Technology goes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential
Next, it is subverted by those threatened by its potential
Finally, it is considered self-evident.
-unknown



If you want an extreme example of your system in action move to North Korea.

Look at all the pretty lights that the government keeps on

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/korea-by-night.jpg



.....oh wait.


Best Korea or better Korea ?



em3rgentOrdr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434


youtube.com/ericfontainejazz now accepts bitcoin


View Profile WWW
February 10, 2011, 06:28:32 AM
 #37

And there are others. The Koch bros. are just a very obvious example. Of course, they didn't just fund the tea partiers. Pretty much every "libertarian" outfit that you've heard of (and some that you likely haven't) have been bankrolled by others like them.

Gene, you may be unaware that us anarcho-libertarians refer to the minarchist pseudo "libertarian" outfits funded by the Koch brothers using the derogatory term "Kochtopus" (type it into your favorite search engine).

Here's an 1984 article by anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard dissing the Kochtopus: "The State of the Movement: The Implosion".  The term "kochtopus" was first used by the agorist (a form of libertarian anarchism advocating for counter economics to bring freedom) Samuel E. Konkin III.

Btw, does Gene actually use bitcoin?  Freedom of money seems to go against everything he believes.

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

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

Activity: 252


View Profile
February 10, 2011, 10:54:39 AM
 #38

Whats to laugh at ?

http://www.moller.com/

Quote
New Technology goes through three stages:
First it is ridiculed by those ignorant of its potential
Next, it is subverted by those threatened by its potential
Finally, it is considered self-evident.
-unknown



If you want an extreme example of your system in action move to North Korea.

Look at all the pretty lights that the government keeps on

http://www.atr.org/userfiles/korea-by-night.jpg




.....oh wait.


Best Korea or better Korea ?





Nice false equivalence.

Also, flying cars (airplanes?) are not exactly new technology. The absurd proposition that they make for good personal transport is what I find laughable. Aside from what is an extremely energy-intensive task (flying - a bit less efficient that rolling) you now have to handle navigation in 3 dimensions of unconstrained space. With many many other operators. This seems... unrealistic.

But keep bringing it up. Extra points for building and flying around in one. Super extra points for becoming an hero.

*processing payment* *error 404 : funds not found*
Do you want to complain on the forum just to fall for another scam a few days later?
| YES       |        YES |
gene
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252


View Profile
February 10, 2011, 10:56:56 AM
 #39

And there are others. The Koch bros. are just a very obvious example. Of course, they didn't just fund the tea partiers. Pretty much every "libertarian" outfit that you've heard of (and some that you likely haven't) have been bankrolled by others like them.

Gene, you may be unaware that us anarcho-libertarians refer to the minarchist pseudo "libertarian" outfits funded by the Koch brothers using the derogatory term "Kochtopus" (type it into your favorite search engine).

Here's an 1984 article by anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard dissing the Kochtopus: "The State of the Movement: The Implosion".  The term "kochtopus" was first used by the agorist (a form of libertarian anarchism advocating for counter economics to bring freedom) Samuel E. Konkin III.

Btw, does Gene actually use bitcoin?  Freedom of money seems to go against everything he believes.

They are cheerleaders for unregulated business. Several posters here are right there with them.

Help me understand the distinction. What do you think of unregulated business?

*processing payment* *error 404 : funds not found*
Do you want to complain on the forum just to fall for another scam a few days later?
| YES       |        YES |
Anonymous
Guest

February 10, 2011, 12:14:47 PM
 #40

And there are others. The Koch bros. are just a very obvious example. Of course, they didn't just fund the tea partiers. Pretty much every "libertarian" outfit that you've heard of (and some that you likely haven't) have been bankrolled by others like them.

Gene, you may be unaware that us anarcho-libertarians refer to the minarchist pseudo "libertarian" outfits funded by the Koch brothers using the derogatory term "Kochtopus" (type it into your favorite search engine).

Here's an 1984 article by anarcho-capitalist Murray Rothbard dissing the Kochtopus: "The State of the Movement: The Implosion".  The term "kochtopus" was first used by the agorist (a form of libertarian anarchism advocating for counter economics to bring freedom) Samuel E. Konkin III.

Btw, does Gene actually use bitcoin?  Freedom of money seems to go against everything he believes.

They are cheerleader for unregulated business. Several posters here are right there with them.

Help me understand the distinction. What do you think of unregulated business?


Unregulated business=bitcoin.

I love unregulated business. What do you want to do about it ?
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »  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!