I made this video on the ostracism happening against Bitcoin libertarians

[genjix]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAYT2gaAqw

reddit thread if you want to help spread this message by upvoting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20ect1/i_made_this_video_on_the_ostracism_happening/

[practicaldreamer]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

[~Coinseeker~]

You may want to consider slowing down the slides a bit.  It requires incredible speed reading skills to catch everything.   

I applaud Libertarians or anyone for that matter, building infrastructure around Bitcoin, that serves their specific ideals and principles best.  However, it is important to remember that Bitcoin is not a Libertarian thing, or a conservative or liberal thing or a Christian or atheist thing.  It's a humanity thing and no one group has more say than another on what Bitcoin is or should be.  

[Rampion]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

[practicaldreamer]

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

Yes - thats precisely my understanding of the differeneces - you made a good explanation and post.

[bitlancr]

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?

[bbeagle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAYT2gaAqw

The video goes by too quickly - hard to read any long quotes. The quotes need to be simplified, read to the listener, or there need to be longer delays.

[QuestionAuthority]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

All the anarchism founders were anti-capitalists - in fact anarchism was born precisely as a reaction to the rise of capitalism in the first half of 1800. On the contrary, the vast majority of "US libertarians" are totally pro-capitalism and simply ignore the work of the founders of anarchism (Proudhon, Bakunin, Kropotkin et al.), while tending to glorify Rothbard's "anarcho-capitalism" which, by the way, is pure and simply a ridiculous oxymoron.

It should also be said that anarchists were against "private property", but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An anarchist would never accept any ruler/boss, regardless of that ruler/boss being "public" (the government) or "private" (the guy paying your wage - "wage slavery" is a no-no in anarchism). In fact, one of the core principle sof anarchism is workers themselves controlling the product of their labor and self-managing factories, farms, etc. If you are working a piece of land, then you own it, and nobody can decide for you what to do with the fruit of your work.

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

Nicely described and accurate. You obviously have a genuine understanding of political science.

[amspir]

This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?

When monopolies and cartels form.

Small example:  It used to be common practice for a highly valuable engineers to jump between tech companies, by finding the company that was willing to pay him or her the most for their services.

It seems that the largest tech companies (the ones that had the ability to pay the most for this specialized form of labor) formed a cartel to drive down these wages.

http://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

[drrussellshane]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAYT2gaAqw

reddit thread if you want to help spread this message by upvoting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20ect1/i_made_this_video_on_the_ostracism_happening/

Mi staras kun vi, amiko!

En pli ol unu maniero ni estas samideanoj.



 

[Luno]

Amazing thread this is. As a non American, I've always been attracted to the "social consciousness" or "peer responsibility" (in lack of a better word) amongst libertarians and ANCAP'ers here and from other historical sources.

However pointing out those "left wing" virtues kind of offend Americans identifying them self as libertarians?

I'm not talking about socialism or communism, but even Adam Smith wrote about the need for a social security ad  responsibility towards the poor. He sold it as a security for the rich for not being robbed by the mob, but he truly believed that the privilege of wealth carried a responsibility to maintain a certain amount of fairness for the all social classes.

Funny that pioneers in any ideology has this concept of fairness equality in the law and openness and the opposition is not other ideologies  but the seated power in control.

Maybe the concept of conflict between political ideologies is an outdated one, as in reality the struggle is between the right to pursue knowledge, assemble freely and own a reasonable amount of property, and the opposition is the real power in charge, having opposite interests, and at best, is trying to capitalise on ideals corrupting them in the process.

States only agenda is to get bigger, stronger and richer, in a world of finite resources. If libertarianism, in it's core, is anti centralisation, it must be anti state too, in the sense that representative democracy or parliamentarism is elitist and un-democratic. Likewise libertarianism would have the same view on centralised cornered financial power (unregulated capitalism) as being un-democratic and suppressive.

So maybe the paradox is how we govern our selves without being governed? It's a hard nut, the Greek mythological ideals were,... well myths, never really achievable in real society, and they tried a lot of different things.

[Rampion]

In a nutshell, anarchism is against all types of coercion, and capitalism is coercitive by nature - but this concept seems difficult to grasp in a country which is precisely founded on capitalism (the USA) and calls itself "the land of the free". Still, there is some US libertarian who understands what anarchism really means (Noam Chomsky for example), but they usually need to label themselves "libertarian socialist" because otherwise they would be confused among the vast majority of US pro-capitalism "libertarians".

This is nonsense - how is capitalism coercive?

In very basic terms: Coercive hierarchical structures are inherent to capitalism. Individuals who do not own any means of production are forced to sell their labor as a condition for survival to those who do own means of production, triggering a "wage slavery" mechanism. You need to employ your time as your employer wants, otherwise you might starve.

As a side note, capitalism is based on a competitivity principle which is opposed to the "mutual aid" principle professed by anarchists (Kropotkin).

To make a long story short, anarchist thinkers share Marx's view on capitalism, and about this specific (coercion) point:

In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physical coercion. In the capitalist mode of production, that result is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the means of production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary in that he or she chooses which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the "voluntary" nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory.

Alienation is the estrangement of people from their humanity, which is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and control what they do during their worktime, and so generate alienated labourers. In Marx's view, alienation is an objective characterization of the worker's situation in capitalism – his or her self-awareness of this condition is not prerequisite.

[davidgdg]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An incoherent distinction, which is why anarcho-syndicalism inevitably leads to statism and dictatorship no less than does socialism.

[davidgdg]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRAYT2gaAqw

reddit thread if you want to help spread this message by upvoting:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/20ect1/i_made_this_video_on_the_ostracism_happening/

Nice video, though I'm not quite sure about the opening definition of libertarianism. Surely a libertarian is simply somebody who believes that the best society is one in which liberty is maximised?

[practicaldreamer]

To make a long story short, anarchist thinkers share Marx's view on capitalism, and about this specific (coercion) point:

In pre-capitalist economies, exploitation of the worker was achieved via physical coercion. In the capitalist mode of production, that result is more subtly achieved; because the worker does not own the means of production, he or she must voluntarily enter into an exploitive work relationship with a capitalist in order to earn the necessities of life. The worker's entry into such employment is voluntary in that he or she chooses which capitalist to work for. However, the worker must work or starve. Thus, exploitation is inevitable, and the "voluntary" nature of a worker participating in a capitalist society is illusory.

Alienation is the estrangement of people from their humanity, which is a systematic result of capitalism. Under capitalism, the fruits of production belong to the employers, who expropriate the surplus created by others and control what they do during their worktime, and so generate alienated labourers. In Marx's view, alienation is an objective characterization of the worker's situation in capitalism – his or her self-awareness of this condition is not prerequisite.

Yes - and its precisely for this reason that I personally would prefer to view BTC's ideological roots as being more in line with traditional European anarchism than of modern day US libertarianism. I like to think that widespread adoption of BTC would undermine the grip that a ruling elite would have over the ownership of the means of production - obviously with particular reference to finance capital.

   The US libertarians on this forum seem more interested in BTC's function in eroding the role of the state in the life of the individual - they don't seem to agree with Proudhon, for example, that "property is theft" - and have no views on the ownership of the means of production other than state ownership is bad.

Without taking ownership into account "liberty", I feel, may prove illusive.

but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An incoherent distinction, which is why anarcho-syndicalism inevitably leads to statism and dictatorship no less than does socialism.

The distinction makes perfect sense to me TBH
    

[Rampion]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An incoherent distinction, which is why anarcho-syndicalism inevitably leads to statism and dictatorship no less than does socialism.

There are strong economic arguments against your statement. The distinction about personal and private property is clear: the former is non-productive, the latter is productive property.

Furthermore, anarcho-syndicalism has been empyrically tested just once: in Aragón, Spain, from 1930 to 1938. It was a peaceful, self-managed, classless and cashless, stateless society that succeeded until the spanish fascists and the russian communists joined forces to crush it, as a successful anarchist society was a huge threat to their own interests in Europe (anarchists were obviously strongly opposed to communism and its hierarchical structures). Finally, anarcho-syndicalism "inevitably leading to statism and dictatorship" is complete nonsense, being its core principles "no state, no God, no ruler". How feasible would be such anarchist society is yet to be seen, but as stated earlier the *only* empyrical experience in that sense (Israel Kibbutz's are too small to serve as an example) indicates that it could work quite well.

[davidgdg]

I really need to read up on Eric Raymond - I nearly dismissed him out of hand on account of the forum troll (whose name I won't mention) singing his praises - guilt by association etc.

I'd forgotten that it was Proudhon who said "all property is theft" - where do the US libertarians stand on that point I wonder ?

Cool music BTW.

but there is a difference between "private" and "personal" property: anarchists totally respect "personal property" (your clothes, your house, etc.), what they do not respect is "private property" which basically means "the private ownership of the means of production" (companies, manufacturing plants, farmland, etc.).

An incoherent distinction, which is why anarcho-syndicalism inevitably leads to statism and dictatorship no less than does socialism.

There are strong economic arguments against your statement. The distinction about personal and private property is clear: the former is non-productive, the latter is productive property.

Furthermore, anarcho-syndicalism has been empyrically tested just once: in Aragón, Spain, from 1930 to 1938. It was a peaceful, self-managed, classless and cashless, stateless society that succeeded until the spanish fascists and the russian communists joined forces to crush it, as a successful anarchist society was a huge threat to their own interests in Europe (anarchists were obviously strongly opposed to communism and its hierarchical structures). Finally, anarcho-syndicalism "inevitably leading to statism and dictatorship" is complete nonsense, being its core principles "no state, no God, no ruler". How feasible would be such anarchist society is yet to be seen, but as stated earlier the *only* empyrical experience in that sense (Israel Kibbutz's are too small to serve as an example) indicates that it could work quite well.

Syndicalism tends towards fascism, not freedom. 1930's Italy, German and the U.S. were all broadly syndicalist. Two of them ended up with fascist dictatorships and the third came close (see John T Flynn "As We Go Marching" for a detailed account). 

As for the impossibility of a modern technological society without markets, prices  and private property, see Mises on the Economic Calculation Argument (never refuted). 

[practicaldreamer]

The technology is value free - if it wasn't it wouldn't stand a chance.

A by-product of this may be that the ruling elite no longer are able to control the monetary and financial side of the means of production. This may have beneficial effects - it  may help merely to chrystallise the question. Either way, it will engender a huge shift away from a position whereby the monetary system is at the beck and call of capitalism, in its service and essentially not value free.

It maybe that BTC was developed with this in mind - it may not. But the BTC protocol itself is value free - and thats as it should be. That is its strength.

[benjamindees]

Rampion, can you take a minute and tell us who, exactly, it is that creates "individuals who do not own any means of production"?

[practicaldreamer]

Rampion, can you take a minute and tell us who, exactly, it is that creates "individuals who do not own any means of production"?

What ? Who creates those who have nothing ? Those who have it all of course  

The UK government just had an IPO of Royal Mail - and so sold to the "public" what they in any case already owned - and whats more, in practice, they effectively gave it away to the City at a 50% discount to its market value.

Who "created" that ?  Get real FFS