Bitcointalk with a socialist instead of an ancap in charge.

[Poker Player]

This thread is the result of a thought process that originated from reading this:

I'm an ancap, so I'd work toward ending the state entirely.

Before reading that I didn't know anything about how he thinks, but since then, and knowing more and more how the forum works, I keep thinking how different the forum would be if instead of an ancap in charge we had a socialist. The hypothetical scenario of a communist, I don't even consider it, because they have the virtue of ruining everything they touch, so I think the forum would have run out of traffic and probably disappeared long ago in that case.

I will outline the three main things that I believe would be different if a socialist were in charge:

1) Political censorship.

That's for sure. It's along the lines of what we can see elsewhere on the internet. The freedom of expression here would not be the same. The degree of censorship would depend on how sensible the (socialist) person in charge was. But at the very least we would have seen censorship on the COVID issue.

2) The trust system would not be decentralized.

In the OP of DefaultTrust changes, Theymos mentions David Friedman, who is an ancap, and son of Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman.
Decentralizing the system is along the lines of believing that if you let people interact with each other, the system will self-regulate. It's kind of like what Adam Smith called "the invisible hand." You don't need a politician from above imposing laws, rules and regulations, people interacting with each other does much better.

3) The merit system would not have been created.

And I think another worse solution would have been implemented, although we can never know for sure. The system is not perfect, but it is very good. It rewards those who make an effort, instead of trying to equalize, redistribute and talk about "unfair advantages". It is a typically capitalist system of competition, effort and reward for effort and a job well done.

This is what I have been thinking lately and I would like to read what you think.

[1713910446]

1713910446

[1713910446]

1713910446

[1713910446]

1713910446

[decodx]

/cut/

I don't know where you draw those conclusions from, but you seem to have little knowledge of real socialism and what it represents. In fact, the decentralized trust system and the merit system fit very well into socialist society. As far as "political censorship" is concerned, it has more to do with communism than socialism.

[AliErkic]

Looks like you are obsessed posting negative content about Socialism and painting it in a bad way.

Are you painting Socialism in a bad way because you don't know much about it or are you painting Socialism in a bad way because it is your only intention to be negative?

[suchmoon]

And I think another worse solution would have been implemented, although we can never know for sure. The system is not perfect, but it is very good. It rewards those who make an effort, instead of trying to equalize, redistribute and talk about "unfair advantages". It is a typically capitalist system of competition, effort and reward for effort and a job well done.

There is no competition and merits are not scarce. It's basically a participation trophy, just show up and post something coherent and you'll get a merit - no elaborate talent show required. I don't know whether that's "socialist" or "capitalist" or "ancap" or whatever juxtaposition you're trying to do here, it doesn't seem to be political at all.

[coins4commies]

Who enforces private property rights in a stateless an-cap society?  What happens if workers at my factory keep what they produce or tenants living in the home I own don't pay rent? 

[Cnut237]

Who enforces private property rights in a stateless an-cap society?

Whoever has the biggest guns. But whatever happened to Proudhon's 'property is theft'?

But making the huge assumption that such a society could actually persist in some form of stability without degenerating into a bloodbath, everything would be controlled by monopolies and cartels.

[_Miracle]

Who enforces private property rights in a stateless an-cap society?  What happens if workers at my factory keep what they produce or tenants living in the home I own don't pay rent? 

I've only just started this one...

Legal Systems Very Different from Ours
By: David Friedman, Peter Leeson, David Skarbek
Narrated by: David Friedman




Ha Poker Player you just gave me like a triple "geek out" I adore Milton Friedman and the books he and his wife wrote, their son is quirky and has really interesting books and ideas as well ---quite different from his dad.

P.S. finally someone who doesn't mangle the invisible hand concept   -- thank you :-)

We're pretty lucky to have Theymos "in charge"

[Cnut237]

finally someone who doesn't mangle the invisible hand concept

It didn't need any help though, surely? It mangled itself. It's an outdated and discredited concept, more wishful thinking than anything else.

INTJ-A

I always come out as that, too. I'd imagine we're quite over-represented on the Politics and Society board of a bitcoin forum.

I keep thinking how different the forum would be if instead of an ancap in charge we had a socialist. The hypothetical scenario of a communist, I don't even consider it, because they have the virtue of ruining everything they touch

To some people (although not myself), communism as a theoretical concept is appealing. Its crucial failure in practice is that it is so easy to corrupt. But isn't this true of any extremist ideology? An ancap society in practice would surely go the same way (albeit via a different route).
What do you imagine a forum run by a socialist might look like? Red background, hammer and sickle everywhere? Forum rules only altered in accordance with the current five-year plan? Trolls sent to Siberia for "re-education"?

[suchmoon]

Trolls sent to Siberia for "re-education"?

Compared to the affirmative action going on here for trolls, spammers, and other assorted idiots, sending them off to Siberia twitbook and snapgram wouldn't be that bad, would it.

Just one of those things where the allegedly "ancap" forum is about as communist (equality at the expense of efficiency) as it gets.

[Cnut237]

Compared to the affirmative action going on here for trolls, spammers, and other assorted idiots, sending them off to Siberia twitbook and snapgram wouldn't be that bad, would it.

TBH if their route became Facebook/Twitter -> bitcointalk, although they'd still be posting stupid links, it would probably be an improvement on the current route of Bitchute/NaturalNews -> bitcointalk.

But relocation to Siberia will of course remain the dream.

[_Miracle]

finally someone who doesn't mangle the invisible hand concept

It didn't need any help though, surely? It mangled itself. It's an outdated and discredited concept, more wishful thinking than anything else.

INTJ-A

I always come out as that, too. I'd imagine we're quite over-represented on the Politics and Society board of a bitcoin forum.

I think scholars have mangled it as a concept when teaching it in class
 and that continually gets carried over into political/economic discussions, inserted into movies T.V. shows, books ect.

There are many observations made in the book and one of them is that a supply chain and/or market can move itself quite efficiently without outside regulations and controls.
Smith also observes areas where government interference is in play.
There is more observation than opining in the Wealth of Nations.

This is one those times when I feel lucky not to have been educated. Scholars who want to teach Wealth of Nations should at least read his Theory of Moral Sentiments and at least brush upon the changes that were happening on a global scale at the time (Age of Enlightenment).

Actually scholars who want to teach economic concepts (Hayek vs Keynes) should include social circumstance into the lessons as background.

And maybe bitcoin/Bitcoin is a perfect present day observation of a system at work---in its free and regulated state.


                                                               "I'd imagine we're quite over-represented on the Politics and Society"

Introverts unite---lol just kidding :-)       I've wondered that about INTJ's and our interests, most of my friends are extroverts.




So... is there going to be a "Siberia Board" or what ?

[BADecker]

^^^ If you look at Bitcoin and the altcoins lately, what in the world is moving them? Outside of a few strays or new altcoins, they all move together. Something is controlling them.

[Cnut237]

There are many observations made in the book and one of them is that a supply chain and/or market can move itself quite efficiently without outside regulations and controls.

The book was written when the US was still a colony of England. It was written before we knew how to produce electricity. I don't think it can say a huge amount about the advanced market economies of the modern world.

I tend to view capitalism as a process rather than an end state. I don't see how it can have an equilibrium position. I am not educated in this either, so forgive my ignorance, but if the contention is that a system based on the pursual of self-interest and profit at the expense of others (because capitalism is a competition, isn't it?) contains within itself some invisible mechanism that pulls society towards economic stability and equilibrium... then it just sounds like wishful thinking. I mean, the 2008 crisis couldn't have arisen unless the excesses of capitalism had increased instability to such a point that everything was ready to collapse. Perhaps the answer is that I misunderstand the concept, but it perplexes me that some people still believe that an invisible hand exists, and my only conclusion when I compare this belief to the utter absence of evidence for its existence, is that it is simply a psychological prop used to support an idea that is outdated and incorrect.


This is one of those threads that opens up many avenues of discussion, and I may be veering off-topic.

[_Miracle]

There are many observations made in the book and one of them is that a supply chain and/or market can move itself quite efficiently without outside regulations and controls.

The book was written when the US was still a colony of England. It was written before we knew how to produce electricity. I don't think it can say a huge amount about the advanced market economies of the modern world.

I tend to view capitalism as a process rather than an end state. I don't see how it can have an equilibrium position. I am not educated in this either, so forgive my ignorance, but if the contention is that a system based on the pursual of self-interest and profit at the expense of others (because capitalism is a competition, isn't it?) contains within itself some invisible mechanism that pulls society towards economic stability and equilibrium... then it just sounds like wishful thinking. I mean, the 2008 crisis couldn't have arisen unless the excesses of capitalism had increased instability to such a point that everything was ready to collapse. Perhaps the answer is that I misunderstand the concept, but it perplexes me that some people still believe that an invisible hand exists, and my only conclusion when I compare this belief to the utter absence of evidence for its existence, is that it is simply a psychological prop used to support an idea that is outdated and incorrect.


This is one of those threads that opens up many avenues of discussion, and I may be veering off-topic.

LOL---if you could see my reaction (like oh noooo you didn't just say that about TWoN   )

You would be surprised. I'd venture to guess that most modern day Economists have read it or had to be "schooled on it" in some class.
Milton Friedman got me interested in the book to begin with and then constant misrepresentations made me finish reading it.
It is really quite an extraordinary amount of data that he collected for those times.


"The Invisible Hand" *no ominous background music included

Here is an O.K. interpretation *stolen from the internet
"a metaphor for the unseen forces that move the free market economy"

I would say the unseen forces in any type of economy---> Us people, the personal choices we make that move markets.

                           

 "Capitalism as a process" Yes I agree.

[_Miracle]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations

"In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith speaks of an invisible hand, never of the invisible hand. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith uses the concept to sustain a "trickling down" theory, a concept also used in neoclassical development theory: The gluttony of the rich serves to feed the poor.

The rich ... consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand [emphasis added] to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for.[12]"




and now we're all reminded of how our friends feel when we talk about bitcoin   ----which is why I used to just give it to them

[Cnut237]

LOL---if you could see my reaction (like oh noooo you didn't just say that about TWoN   )

I will concede the point, I didn't mean to say that . What I mean is, it's a starting position, and in terms of the modern world it's more a prediction than an analysis. It doesn't describe the modern world through observation, more through prediction... it's more of an idealised understanding, and the modern world I would say has not developed exactly as anticipated. What I mean is that there are nuances which of course could not have been anticipated. I'm certainly not denying it's important, but it's flawed.

"trickling down" theory

I appreciate we are coming at this from different angles, but to me, trickle-down is another discredited theory, another imaginary prop used as a moral support to justify selfishness and rapacity.

[_Miracle]

I will concede the point, I didn't mean to say that . What I mean is, it's a starting position, and in terms of the modern world it's more a prediction than an analysis. It doesn't describe the modern world through observation, more through prediction... it's more of an idealised understanding, and the modern world I would say has not developed exactly as anticipated. What I mean is that there are nuances which of course could not have been anticipated. I'm certainly not denying it's important, but it's flawed.

"trickling down" theory

I appreciate we are coming at this from different angles, but to me, trickle-down is another discredited theory, another imaginary prop used as a moral support to justify selfishness and rapacity.

Thank You :-) made me laugh
Here is the thing, if you talk to educated people about the book they will say I'm not getting it---> like "trickle down",
turned into "Trickle Down Economics" in my country decades ago and it ain't pretty and is pretty much what he was concerned about happening
when individuals were replaced with conglomerates and over governance.


Smith is being more spiritual, godley or humanistic than most economists or politiciations will be capable or willing to translate.
Serving our own self interest is an undeniable human trait, I don't think he was overly optimistic to think that we would look out for our fellow man during the pursuit of that on an individual level.

When corporations have the rights of people it becomes rapacious. When governments preserve the rights of corporations over its people it becomes coercion and oppressive.



*that last sentence is more me than Smith ;-)
He would have worded it in a more dignified manner.

[Poker Player]

Hi guys, thanks for the replies, but I’m not going to go into detail.

In fact, I've been thinking and I don't think you'll be seeing much more of me on this board, at least in the near future.

I think I have a lot more to lose than to win if I keep coming back here.

This does not mean that I will not talk about politics, for example, in the Economics board we also talk about politics mixed with economics, but discussions there are not usually so heated or confrontational.

I think I will do much better on this forum if I change the time I spent here for time on the technical boards.

I’ll see you around the forum.

[_Miracle]

This does not mean that I will not talk about politics, for example, in the Economics board we also talk about politics mixed with economics, but discussions there are not usually so heated or confrontational.

On my part, you have my word:
no heat nor shade was thrown or felt, it was one of the "funnest" conversations regarding socialism, anarcho capitalism, Et al. that I've had this year :-)

Although...
If you are going to post about politics on the Economics board here on bitcointalk with a tag showing appreciation for capitalism; you may experience heat.
Politics and Economics are not the sweetest side of bitcointalk (mining used to be).

[Cnut237]

Smith is being more spiritual, godley or humanistic than most economists or politiciations will be capable or willing to translate.
Serving our own self interest is an undeniable human trait, I don't think he was overly optimistic to think that we would look out for our fellow man during the pursuit of that on an individual level.

Again forgive my ignorance, as I'm not an expert on this topic... but if you are saying that the 'invisible hand' argument should be interpreted as meaning that capitalism does not self-regulate by itself, or through any human endeavour, but needs something external (i.e., God) to do this, then I suppose we're in agreement. I've said in many discussions in P&S that although my politics are considerably left-of-centre, I believe that the oxymoron of 'capitalist democracy' is the best system of government we can have... so long as the government works to rein in the excesses of capitalism, and the capitalism works to prevent forced absolute equality of outcome. We need two opposing forces to keep each other in check. I think this is self-evident, and extremist ideologies such as communism or, on the other side, anarcho-capitalism, are doomed to failure.

I am in favour of equality of opportunity, and the only way I see this arising is in a capitalist democracy where the government is left-leaning. A right-wing government, one which more or less is in alignment with laissez-faire capitalism, doesn't provide the required balance.

I don't think you'll be seeing much more of me on this board, at least in the near future.

Proud capitalist

As a parting comment then, I'd ask you once again to consider my argument above, and also my contention that capitalism is a process rather than an end-state. A process has a direction of travel. It may not start out that way, but pure, unfettered capitalism works to reduce competition. This is its direction of travel. If governments did not restrain it, the outcome would be monopolies and cartels. The question of whether these are state-run or privately-run then becomes irrelevant.