Libertarians and gun rights activits here is how the rest of the world sees you

[hilariousandco]

And all of what you said applies to currently 'democratically' elected politicians in their capitalist systems. They promise the earth and do the exact opposite. You obviously have a bee in your bonnet with the mere word 'Socialism' alone. Just because people have failed in the past does not mean they will in the future. Of course if a phony Socialist gets in nothing will change, but simply saying Socialism = bad; Democracy/capitalism also = bad, but I can't be bothered to change it so I'm ok with it until it affects my comfort in my nice little house doesn't work either. And politicians don't need to lead a revolution; the people do. If we wait around waiting for a politician to come along we'll be waiting around forever; and like I said, it doesn’t have to be under the banner of Socialism, just united under the want of common change, because the current system has failed massively. But again, red or blue pill.

You missed out all the practical parts of why I think as I do.

If you want to see change, then just make it happen under the system we have now - that is how politics works. Having a revolution is just proof that your ideas need violence to make them work, otherwise you could just put them to a vote - but it takes time for an idea to flourish!

The problem for any ideology is that the people don't care for thinking, they just want to live in a safe place where food is plentiful and stress is low.  However, ideology appeals to power hungry people who don't have the ability to format their ideas into a way that can make the life of the people any better without lying! - because people don't want to hear about compromise, which is what politics is all about!

Maybe you need to spend some time reading about the early days of the various revolutions we have had world wide in the last 100 years. Revolutions are lead by very focused individuals, unpaid politicians, they are the ones who get the people to move - but as I keep telling you, history shows us, they don't do it for altruistic reasons!

;-)

I never said anything about violence. Please don't think Revolution is just a synonym for Bloodshed and overthrowing governments by force. There are lots of ways you can peacefully bring about Revolution. I'd love to be able to vote somebody into power I believe in, but I've never seen any politician who I could, and even if I did I have no reason to believe what they promise. In this country we've got the choice between Labour, Lib Dems and the Conservatives, and as George Galloway says: They're three cheeks of the same arse. Whoever gets in; they'll just do the same shit. More wars, more tax breaks for the rich, more cuts for the poor.

Let's find somebody who is willing to do it for altruistic reasons then. It's unfortunate that most of the people who would probably make good leaders don't want to go into politics at all.

[deisik]

Has anyone thought about what binds together all of the various flavors of statism?  In other words, what are some of the things that it would fail without?

A big one that has been glossed over once or twice is the way we humans tend to hierarchically organize ourselves.  It seems to me that this makes statism of one form or another (including democracy, monarchy, and dictatorship) natural outcomes.  Perhaps such organization was a natural evolutionary response to the environment that early man found himself in, but is it still necessary, or even advantageous today (other than for the purpose of propagating the various forms of statism we are still subjected to today)?

It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...

[Jason]

It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...

Now that's a depressing thought.  I will operate under the presumption that it is merely a cultural phenomenon until proven otherwise.

If human civilization is a complex dynamic system, then surely there are tipping points which if reached, will result in spontaneous reorganization.  Sometimes in small ways such as changes in fashion, but sometimes in much more dramatic ways, such as the reformation and subsequent renaissance in Europe which paved the way for what we call the modern world.  In many cases, the invention a a new technology (gunpowder, the printing press, the internet) created the necessary condition(s) to bring about the change, without which stagnation would have continued indefinitely.

Perhaps Bitcoin will be another catalyst for change, but we (anti-statists) must be vigilant to insure that it triumphs against the rise of centrally-controlled cryptocurrencies which are sure to be backed by the statists in their bid to dull the threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies.  And while the statists are still scrambling to figure out how to deal with the new threat posed by decentralized cryptocurrencies, now would be an excellent time for other similarly disruptive technologies to debut.

[ElectricMucus]

There isn't really Libertarian socialism, what you are looking for is traditional Anarchism/ Syndicalist Anarchism.
Both are still non-radicalized forms of Anarchism without bastardization, as they do not exclude certain concepts from the every authority must be justified principle.

"Capitalist" Anarchists (AnCap, Libertarians) for example define property either as a "natural" or "god-given" right and refuse to attribute it to Authority. They aren't really Anarchists at all and are really just radical Neoliberals.

[deisik]

It may turn our that statism as a form of human organization was in fact the best evolutionary response to the environment of early man, but the roots of this evolutionary adaptation should necessarily lie in the human nature itself (otherwise this simply wouldn't work out). It means that even if we change the environment as we already did, we still can't get rid of our nature and what it imposes upon us...

Now that's a depressing thought.  I will operate under the presumption that it is merely a cultural phenomenon until proven otherwise.

State can be considered as an instrument to realize an individual's lust for power inherent to some humans (so called alpha males) in a more or less peaceful way, an instrument which has been sharpened and brought to perfection through centuries in socially well-developed states...

[Ibian]

How about instead of sophisting over definitions let's look at what it would take to fix things?

The basic problem with welfare states at the current time is that we have a growing number of retirees from a large generation (baby boomers) and a shrinking number of new hands to work and pay taxes to support them (their children and grandchildren, whom they didn't have enough of - fertility rate in europe is something like 1.4-1.6 depending on sources. The same is true of the white part of america (no, shut up, go be offended elsewhere)), along with an ever expanding welfare state.

There is no quick fix to this under the current system. The options are to wait until the old folks die and a replacement-level generation is born and grow up, or to scrap the entire welfare system. And that is simply not going to happen, willingly. The only person who might have changed things was Ron Paul and we know how that went.

We are in this for the long haul.

[nwbitcoin]

How about instead of sophisting over definitions let's look at what it would take to fix things?

The basic problem with welfare states at the current time is that we have a growing number of retirees from a large generation (baby boomers) and a shrinking number of new hands to work and pay taxes to support them (their children and grandchildren, whom they didn't have enough of - fertility rate in europe is something like 1.4-1.6 depending on sources. The same is true of the white part of america (no, shut up, go be offended elsewhere)), along with an ever expanding welfare state.

There is no quick fix to this under the current system. The options are to wait until the old folks die and a replacement-level generation is born and grow up, or to scrap the entire welfare system. And that is simply not going to happen, willingly. The only person who might have changed things was Ron Paul and we know how that went.

We are in this for the long haul.

What if you were to do as they have done in advanced cultures who are already suffering from a shrinking population?
The Japanese are investing in medial care robots, to look after their old people - seeing as the younger population are better at earning money doing clever things!

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2013/06/19/national/robot-niche-expands-in-senior-care/

This could be technology and the capitalistic way of dealing with problems rather than the socialist way of just throwing tax money at welfare!

[Ibian]

That's such a terrible option that I totally forgot about it.

It's not just the daily laundry and butt wiping that takes money, it's also medicine and actual medics to treat them. As the number of tax payers to tax receivers shrinks cuts will have to be made everywhere and taxation increased to cover rising costs in spite of inferior service.

Another problem with the robot revolution is that it takes away jobs from people. They will then have to find other work if they can, or go on the public teat further increasing public expenses. Using robots and automation in general instead of real humans also destroys the bonds between people. They become names on a screen instead of real humans, leading to an unemphatic society where people just don't care about eachother because their social interactions are limited. This is already happening in socialist utopias around the world.

And ultimately the real problem is the fertility level. Anything below 2.1 means the country is, in the most literal terms, dying. This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

[Anon136]

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

[freethink2013]

I like libertarians but they are so easily manipulated. Look at gmo labeling. Suddenly Monsanto was libertarian.

I used to say to them 'you never kicked up this stick over "may contain traces of peanuts"' - drove them mad.

[nwbitcoin]

That's such a terrible option that I totally forgot about it.

It's not just the daily laundry and butt wiping that takes money, it's also medicine and actual medics to treat them. As the number of tax payers to tax receivers shrinks cuts will have to be made everywhere and taxation increased to cover rising costs in spite of inferior service.

Another problem with the robot revolution is that it takes away jobs from people. They will then have to find other work if they can, or go on the public teat further increasing public expenses. Using robots and automation in general instead of real humans also destroys the bonds between people. They become names on a screen instead of real humans, leading to an unemphatic society where people just don't care about eachother because their social interactions are limited. This is already happening in socialist utopias around the world.

And ultimately the real problem is the fertility level. Anything below 2.1 means the country is, in the most literal terms, dying. This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

What brand of tin foil do you use? ;-)

Firstly, caring as in professionally looking after people is a low wage economy kind of thing - not a job to aspire to so nobody wants to do it. That is where robots kick ass! Otherwise, we should ban pneumatic diggers, and employ hundreds of people to dig holes using spoons if jobs is the only thing that counts!

The irony of your sentence talking about technology destroying the bond between people written on an Internet forum where people chat but never meet in real life is almost beyond words!

Finally, a lower fertility is advancement, and the sign of a mature country.  Most European countries have a negative natural population - especially Germany - the most advanced country being Japan.  Statistically, we will see the population of the Earth dropping within the next 200 years as we get to a point where we don't need as many people to keep the species going.

The problem of immigration is a different issue for a different forum, although I can totally guarantee that while there are a lot of non British born people in London, they are not the majority and Sharia courts are not legal.  In fact a few nut jobs who were trying to set up Sharia areas in East London were jailed a week or so ago for spreading religious hate - The UK may not be Christian like the US, but it certainly isn't for any other religion either! ;-)

[hilariousandco]

This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

As nwbitcoin said, Sharia courts aren't in any way legitimate. They're literally pretend courts with make-believe verdicts and hold zero power. In fact, I or anybody else could create a court and it'd have the exact same legal powers as Sharia ones: None.

You're not one of those Immigration is White Genocide people, are you? The UK population is almost 70% White and Muslims make up a mere 5%.

[Ibian]

This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

As nwbitcoin said, Sharia courts aren't in any way legitimate. They're literally pretend courts with make-believe verdicts and hold zero power. In fact, I or anybody else could create a court and it'd have the exact same legal powers as Sharia ones: None.

You're not one of those Immigration is White Genocide people, are you? The UK population is almost 70% White and Muslims make up a mere 5%.

Whatever we think about them is irrelevant. The fact is that they have real legal power within the muslim communities - which are growing every day.

Keep in mind this is not the first time the english have been displaced. It happened about a thousand years ago when the vikings invaded and took over. Blood mixed, and the result is what we now know as brits. Language also mixed, with the result being what we now know as english.

History repeats itself. Trouble is, most people don't actually believe it does. We can discuss this again in 50 years. I'm done with it for now.

[hilariousandco]

This is often coupled with massively increased immigration, which will eventually displace the native population. Look to England for fucks sake, they have Sharia courts that are fully legitimate and London has a minority of brits at this point.

As nwbitcoin said, Sharia courts aren't in any way legitimate. They're literally pretend courts with make-believe verdicts and hold zero power. In fact, I or anybody else could create a court and it'd have the exact same legal powers as Sharia ones: None.

You're not one of those Immigration is White Genocide people, are you? The UK population is almost 70% White and Muslims make up a mere 5%.

Whatever we think about them is irrelevant. The fact is that they have real legal power within the muslim communities - which are growing every day.

They have absolutely zero legal power within any community, Muslim or otherwise.

[ElectricMucus]

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

[Anon136]

Libertarianism is the bastardization of Anarchism. It takes a philosophy based on a simple principle (Authority must be justified) and exempts the concept of property from said principle.

Elwar gets bonus godwin points.

what??? perhaps we are wrong about what does and does not justify acquisition, but your claim that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified is prima facie ridiculous. we are CONSTANTLY debating ad nausium amongst each other about what does and does not justify acquisition. If you actually believe that we do not believe that property ownership must be justified than you clearly have made very little effort to understand our position.

tip: Ownership can't be justified with a circular argument - as such not by any term used in describing capitalism.

But lets assume you are right and I haven't researched your position: Then I should be baffled by a fitting explanation of that position by you.
Yes just write it down in your own words and lets see where it leads us.

Ok so I would love to talk with you about this it is one of my favorite topics but before we move onto a new topic i need to make sure that the previous one is settled. Do you believe that i have made a convincing argument for how your previous statement with regards to whether libertarians believe that property ownership must be justified was incorrect? Not meaning anything rude by it, i often myself find that i have said things that are incorrect, i just want to be clear.

[ElectricMucus]

As previously said, I often read from the Libertarian standpoint that property supposed to be either a) natural or b) a "god-given" right or a mixture of both.
Analogies like "two people can't eat the same apple" are used.

When it comes down to it I have seen no proper justification for the authority to claim property at all. What I often see is muddling property with consumption (which is justified by need).
I have not seen any proper justification for the authority over ownership of land for instance, you might start with that if you don't know where to start. If you know better it's fine if you start somewhere else.

[ElectricMucus]

Try again. Discussion is not allowed to continue until I get a proper response to my arguments.

Hint: My authority is granted by the forum and the fact that I came up with the thread, however I do not own it.

[Anon136]

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=366520

[ElectricMucus]

Property rights exist because people agree they exist. People want the comfort of having a place they call "home" where they can consider themselves "safe", so they are willing to allow others to have that comfort as well. As long as most people agree that owning property is a right, they aren't going to complain when someone ignores that right and is punished for it.

It's a start. But getting people to agree on something is hardly a proper justification. History has shown that people will agree to lots of things many of which we currently see as unjustified if they are coerced enough.

I guess the joke is on me since the guy who's unwilling or unable to give me a proper debate is Butthurt I deleted his post and you delete all your posts anyway and I can't really debate you that way either.