Bitcoins Lost

[FatherMcGruder]

FatherMcGruder thought paying interest rate is evil. I was given a loan at interest rate by Nanotube and I was perfectly happy with it. Fuck FatherMcGruder for thinking that my affair as exploitative.

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

Take a Midol, already.

[1714154472]

1714154472

[1714154472]

1714154472

[myrkul]

No, But I'd like to think we've learned a few things since then.

So would I.

Then why are you still using outdated arguments?

[myrkul]

No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1

[FatherMcGruder]

Then why are you still using outdated arguments?

Why is the age of an argument relevant?

No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1

I don't recall ever getting in anyone's way. I merely called out capitalism for the exploitative relationships it promotes and suggested that Bitcoin pioneers embrace cooperation instead. Kiba caught me by surprise with his resounding butthurt.

[myrkul]

Then why are you still using outdated arguments?

Why is the age of an argument relevant?

When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.

No, I don't think like this. Rather, only the two persons who entered in an economic relationship or exchange get to decide what's fair and what's not. Anybody who don't have a damn stake in the matter should get the fuck out of the way.

...

I have the right to work. Don't get in my way.

+1

I don't recall ever getting in anyone's way. I merely called out capitalism for the exploitative relationships it promotes and suggested that Bitcoin pioneers embrace cooperation instead. Kiba caught me by surprise with his resounding butthurt.

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people. 

[kiba]

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  

Wrong. I am culturally western, but my homeland was Vietnam.

[FatherMcGruder]

When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.

No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people. 

Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.

[BitterTea]

I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?

I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?

[myrkul]

When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.

No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.

Oh? and just how do you propose to "fix" the "injustices" of Capitalism?

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people. 

Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.

I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...

[Anonymous]

When newer argument supplants or disproves them, it is.

No one has done that with the arguments I've presented here.

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

You are advocating taking property away from people. People tend to get upset when you do that.

Lies! I don't recall advocating anything of the sort.

Oh? and just how do you propose to "fix" the "injustices" of Capitalism?

It should be noted that kiba has previously stated he is located in china. Yeah. Capitalism oppresses people.  

Communism, wherein the state owns all of the capital and controls its citizens' access to it, is just state capitalism. In other words, the state is the capitalist and its citizens are its employees. In oppressing its people, a communist state simply intends to secure its profits, like any other capitalist.

I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...

I think he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

[gene]

I thin he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I can't speak for him, but there are real examples of people working towards some of these ideals today. He probably has a far clearer idea of how to achieve his ideals than you do yours.

[Anonymous]

I thin he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I can't speak for him, but there are real examples of people working towards some of these ideals today. He probably has a far clearer idea of how to achieve his ideals than you do yours.

I have no plan to achieve any ideals. I believe society will reach a suitable system over gradual failures and successes. Evolution, if you will. If we are ever going to achieve anything remotely close to utopia, we will have to learn from history.

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

[myrkul]

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?

[Anonymous]

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?

Well, what survives will certainly be better than its dead predecessors.

I completely agree. If I have any preference when it comes to current political systems, it's decentralized competition.

[FatherMcGruder]

I've come up with a scenario and would appreciate if any of the "rent/profit is exploitation" people could answer the questions that follow.

Alice, after working for the same employer for 10 years, saved $50,000 to start her own business designing and creating extravagant widgets. She purchased widget making machinery, materials and set up a small production area attached to her home. The first year, business was slow and she spent half of her remaining savings keeping the business operating. The second year, some publicity brought in new clients, a tickle at first, then a flood. Soon, she did not have enough time to both design and produce the widgets alone. She decides to bring in one or more additional people to handle the manufacturing process.

Alice has clearly put much work into her business. If she needs to someone to merely operate a machine, why must she be morally obligated to reward the newcomer as highly as herself? If her business fails, she loses her savings, the results of the time expended up until this point, and all of the equipment and materials purchased (capital). On the other hand, her employees lose nothing but a guaranteed salary, which they can find elsewhere, or start their own business.

Assuming nothing about the labor market (it could be that employment is high, which means business fight for employees, not the other way around), why is it that an agreement between Alice and her new employee Bob is exploitative? Alice made Bob an offer for compensation, and Bob either accepted or negotiated a higher price, but it is still a wage. If Bob agreed to it, how can it be bad?

I have no problem with Bob paying for his share of the expenses. He should give to Alice some of that which he produces until he has paid for half of the building and the equipment. The problem occurs when Alice continues to collect from Bob until after he pays for his fair share. In that case, Alice is exploiting Bob with her ability to prevent him from working at the shop.

I feel that this is important
It seems that the main point of contention between our ideologies is one of causality. My belief is that once there is no state, there will be a fundamental change in business. Your belief is that once there is a fundamental change in business, there will be no state. We both seek the end the prominence of violence in human relationships, though we may each see certain relationships as violent that the other does not. What if instead of arguing about those aspects on which we disagree, we work together to change minds about those aspects on which we agree?

For instance, as has been said before, a society that reflects market anarchist principles would have a place for communes, syndicates, or whatever your favorite brand of non exploitative business arrangement. It would also have a place for some form of capitalism, though I happily accept that it will look nothing like what we know as capitalism today, since I have no particular fondness for this kind of capitalism. On the other hand, however, a society that reflects anarcho-socialist principles would have no place for any other type of business arrangement, even though there would be some individuals willing to participate in alternate arrangements.

Here's the thing, I oppose the state because it is capitalistic. Agorists, anarcho-capitalists, and the like oppose the state because they think it opposes capitalism. That makes no sense to me. The state is profitable because one can use it to better exploit others. In the absence of states, capitalists will compete to create new ones. They do so even in the presence of states by creating corporations, amorphous kingdoms. I will not help a capitalist topple one state so he can subject me to one of his own creation.

To be fair, McGruder has stated that he does not advocate violent revolution. Similar to myself, it seems, as an anarchist (voluntaryist/market anarchist) that does not advocate violent revolution. Though, he does seem to think that such property taking would be justified. Though, if employment and rent are considered exploitation, is such revolution truly violent?

I think revolutionaries treat violent revolution like self-defense and its spoils like restitution. I can understand that, but I don't advocate it because I have capitalist friends and family and I don't want anyone to hurt them. Besides, using violence or the threat of violence to make someone behave differently seems counterproductive.

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?

I believe Lenin, and certainly Marx, would Disagree...

They might. Then again, they might say that the state, in a communist society, is merely the last capitalist and it will surely whither away. Either way, what if they would?

I think he's just proposing his idea of a just society. I don't think he has any clear idea on how to reach this end.

I may not have stated it clearly enough, but I think we can reach this end by embracing cooperative relationships and divesting ourselves from capitalism.

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

So might is right? I cannot agree.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?

If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?

[Anonymous]

The proof of what works will be in the oblivion of what's left behind. What fails is rubbish and what survives in the end is good.

So might is right? I cannot agree.

Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.

[FatherMcGruder]

Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.

But so long as tyranny prevails, it is right?

[Anonymous]

Not necessarily. Tyrannies can be brought down just as free societies are usurped.

But so long as tyranny prevails, it is right?

There is no objective way to describe it. It is what it is and I live my life around it.

Before a just and stable society can be reached, individuals must voluntarily agree to act in their best-interest and cooperatively (not democratically) define what exactly is best-interest. This will require significant evolution as a species, if it ever happens.

[myrkul]

All your arguments are shot down here: http://agorism.info/docs/AgoristClassTheory.pdf

How are all capitalists not red-marketeers?

Red marketeers ply their trade by violent means, and resolve their disputes with violence. Anarcho-capitalism upholds the Non-aggression principle, and proposes arbitration/mediation as the preferred dispute resolution method. Violence is only supported in defense against violence.

Well, I wouldn't put mere survival in the "Good" bin... mediocre, more like. to be good, it must thrive, in the face of competition. Which is why I will welcome enclaves of mutualism, when a prevailing market anarchy is achieved. What good is any system, if it doesn't have competition to keep it on its toes?

If any enclave refused to honor your property and thereby threatened your profits, as a capitalist, you would not tolerate it. Besides, why would a cooperative society compete?

If an individual from an enclave decided that they wanted to use my property and refused to recognize my rights to it, I would treat it as any theft. That does not mean I would enter the enclave seeking to convert or extort the residents.

 A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.

[FatherMcGruder]

Red marketeers ply their trade by violent means, and resolve their disputes with violence. Anarcho-capitalism upholds the Non-aggression principle, and proposes arbitration/mediation as the preferred dispute resolution method. Violence is only supported in defense against violence.

If an individual from an enclave decided that they wanted to use my property and refused to recognize my rights to it, I would treat it as any theft. That does not mean I would enter the enclave seeking to convert or extort the residents.

There's the problem. You would claim that a given area of land, which you aren't actively using, and a party, meaning no offense to you, starts using it because they do not recognize vacant or unused property, you will try to drive them away or destroy them thereby plying your trade--land ownership, if you could call it a trade--by violence. Perhaps you will hire someone else to do it. What other recourse does a capitalist have? The two ideas aren't compatible.

A cooperative society is in competition with the market society simply by existing. It offers an alternative to the market society. If the market society cannot keep the standard of living above that of the cooperative society, people will seek to join the cooperative society, and the market society will lose people. The same goes for the cooperative society, of course, either it will be growing, dying, or in a perilous equilibrium.

It just seems like an oxymoron to me.