Defending Capitalism

[BCEmporium]

Sorry, it has to be, at the current state, an organized and responsible police force and laws to go along in determine who is or isn't right.

All states employ taxation which is immoral, all states outlaw some form of drug use which is immoral, therefore your system of right and wrong is already broken.

It's not "my system" on the first place, I didn't create it, was already around when I born.
But this is the place to move; set what's right or wrong; not come up with an idea of society nearly caveman-age that would result in thugs and gangs.

Our society is already full of thugs and gangs, the police and politicians. Go ask some poor bastard sitting in prison being tortured, locked away from his family, his livelihood taken away from him because he refused to pay taxes or had the audacity to smoke a joint. The difference is that our current system necessarily promotes abuse and injustice. At least we have a fighting chance with anarchism.

Sorry, drugs have to be illegal otherwise drug dealers would run out of business with a kg of coke to roundabout the price of a kg of sugar.
But that's the realm of corruption, democracy gives you weapons to deal with it by not keep voting in cycles in the same bunch of corrupts.
And by democracy you already get the legitimacy of the majority... which you don't on anarchy, so you would want to impose anarchy on your own over others. Like I said, there's no anarchy and pretty often the anarchists sounds like a group of pure autocratic fascists. Think about it!

[1713515670]

1713515670

[1713515670]

1713515670

[1713515670]

1713515670

[BitterTea]

Yeah, "fighting chance" is about right. Have you seen anarchistic societies?
Afghanistan, where the state doesn't have control, which is just about everywhere. Not a good place, but quite close to anarchy.
Iraq, same thing, although a semi-functional state is about to get some control in certain areas.
Somalia, quite a "shitty place" (creightos words form another thread) for a long time, and no state to speak of.
Mexico, in the cartel areas. Not good places to be if you plan for a long and happy life.

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

[NghtRppr]

Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But at least there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors".

No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!

By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?

Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?

Sorry, drugs have to be illegal otherwise drug dealers would run out of business with a kg of coke to roundabout the price of a kg of sugar.

I can't tell if you're serious or not. If drugs were legal, they'd be cheap and nobody would be killing each other over them. Do you see people shooting each other in the streets over alcohol? Not anymore but during prohibition they were. Of course, let's not do anything intelligent like drawing a lesson from that.

[BCEmporium]

You got some points btc2cash, like the state to be a "Protection Racket" business... and banks to be sort of loan sharks either.
It's hard to say which came first anyway, if the "state" or the protection rackets, if banks or loan sharks... anyway, one, state, is a civilized (or an attempt to) way of the other 2.
Plus smuggling, assaulting... gosh! Does Rockstar have plans for a GTA White House?

[MoonShadow]

In my experience, most people who call themselves anarchists (which seems preferred to, but interchangeable with,  anarcho-socialist) believe that private ownership of capital should be discouraged through social institutions, or responded to with theft or violence.

Well, there's a big potential difference between "discourage" and "theft and violence". Certainly some (many?) collectivist anarchists would take the latter approach, but many wouldn't and believe that collective workplaces and distribution centres would naturally win out against market-orientated workplaces and shops, so resorting to theft and violence is pointless (as well as being incompatible with their beliefs).

By the way, where do you get the idea that anarchists are pacifists? That would imply that we don't see self-defense as legitimate and I haven't met one yet that believes that. We're against aggression, not violence.

See the quote above yours.  That is what I was responding to.

[JA37]

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones.
I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate?

[BitterTea]

Tax evasion will get you to jail, if you don't come up with the money somehow. But at least there will be no broken bones or similar things as could be expected from other "debt collectors".

Thought experiment:

A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way?

He can if he is an agent of the state.

What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead.

[BitterTea]

All of your examples fail to prove your point. They are all states, some failed, and all have been the site of heavy manipulation by outside powers. A failed state is not an anarchy, nor is chaos anarchy.

Yeah, they're all examples of what happens when a state fails. Special interest groups take over, the most violent ones.
I am however intrigued by the comment "nor is chaos anarchy". Could you please elaborate?

Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers.

I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary.

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

edit... That's from here

[JA37]

No, they just shoot you in the head or lock you in a rape dungeon. That's much better!

By the way, when you go to a loan shark they are up front with you. They say, "We'll loan you this money but if you don't pay up then we'll break your thumbs." If you don't like that deal, don't take it! Are you seriously expecting me to feel sorry for someone that voluntarily enters into an agreement and then is surprised when the other party keeps their word?

Again, at least with a loan shark you can agree to their terms or walk away. With the government there is no option. Pay up or we'll take your stuff. If you try to defend yourself, we'll kill you or beat you into submission and lock you in a rape dungeon. That's somehow better?

I'm not expecting you to feel sorry for someone in the scenario above. I'm expecting you to be human enough to understand that a contract of that kind isn't valid. Or would you prefer that the state said "Pay your taxes or we'll break your legs"? Where I'm at jail is always the last resort and mainly used to protect society from dangerous people. Tax evaders will have plenty of opportunities to be honorable.

With the government you have the chance of walking away. It's called moving to a different country that better suit your preference. And you have a very romantic view of criminals. Many, if not most, of the debts that they collect are not real debts. They'll approach you, tell you that you somehow owe them this much money and that you have 7 days to pay, or else. Try walking away from that. Atleast when you move from a country they won't tax you in the new country. Hells Angels aren't that picky. They'll collect anywhere.
Oh, and if your country beats you, or puts you in a rape dungeon I suggest you move. We don't have that here. Even our prisons are quite nice, except from the "you are now in jail" bit.

[NghtRppr]

I'm expecting you to be human enough to understand that a contract of that kind isn't valid.

Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid.

With the government you have the chance of walking away. It's called moving to a different country that better suit your preference.

Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion:

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her.

Many, if not most, of the debts that they collect are not real debts.

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

[BCEmporium]

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

Nope... that's just reality. Maybe reality is absurd, but that's another issue.

[BitterTea]

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

Nope... that's just reality. Maybe reality is absurd, but that's another issue.

Do you feel comfortable claiming that it is not possible to protect against extortion without the use extortion?

If no, then you are open to methods of doing so other than using the state.

[JA37]

Thought experiment:
A man shows up at your home with a gun and demands money. He says that if you don't give him money, he will kidnap you and lock you in a cell for as long as he wishes. You hold your ground, refusing to comply with his demands. Can he legitimately use violence against you to get his way?
He can if he is an agent of the state.
What happens if you refuse to be kidnapped by the state? They will escalate the use of force until you are dead.


Chaos is a lack of order. Anarchy is a lack of rulers. There can be order without rulers. Bitcoin is example of order, and rules, without rulers.

I don't want states to fail, I want people to realize that states are not necessary.

Voluntaryism is at once an end, a means, and an insight. It signifies the goal of an all voluntary society, one in which all interaction between individuals is based on voluntary exchange, and thus calls for the abolition of the State. Voluntaryism represents a way of achieving significant social change without resort to politics or violent revolution. Since voluntaryists recognize that government rests on mass acquiescence (the voluntaryist insight), they conclude that the only way to abolish government power is for the people at large to withdraw their cooperation. As a means, voluntaryism calls for peaceful persuasion, education, individual civil disobedience, and group nonviolent resistance to the State. Since voluntaryists see a direct connection between the means they use and the end they seek, they realize that only voluntary means can be used to attain the truly voluntary society. People cannot be coerced into being free. The very goal of an all voluntary society suggests its own means. The voluntaryist insight provides the only logical and consistent way of achieving liberty and abolishing the State.

edit... That's from here

Your thought experiment implies that there is no real debt to be settled. If so, then no, he can't, not even if he's an agent of the state.
If there is a debt, meaning that you have used any of the state provided commodities, such as roads, money, police protection, fire protection, education... the list goes on, then yes, he can, if you by violence means that he'll drag you through the legal system where you will have several opportunities to explain yourself and then subject yourself to the ruling, whatever that might be. You don't get that chance with criminals, and they change the rules mid game.

Thanks for the explaination about chaos and anarchy. And I agree that there can be order/rules without rulers, in very small and well defined areas, such as bitcoin. Computers are very good at enforcing rules. So, how does that work in a society? Who'll do the enforcing there?

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out.

[JA37]

Of course it's valid. All voluntary agreements are valid.

Here's what David Hume thinks of such an assertion:

Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artizan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day, by the small wages which he acquires? We may as well assert, that a man, by remaining in a vessel, freely consents to the dominion of the master; though he was carried on board while asleep, and must leap into the ocean, and perish, the moment he leaves her.

Then that's extortion and society will defend itself from that. You're saying that we need to let the government extort from us money or else the "real" criminals will. That's absurd.

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

[NghtRppr]

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.

If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.

[BitterTea]

So first you say that all voluntary agreements are valid.  Then you move on to say that some people don't have a choice in certain matters, such as where they live. So let's use the poor peasant in the example by David Hume. He lives day by day, and then there's a daught and his family starves. I then approach him and offer to provide for his family until his children are old enough to farm, in exchange I want to murder him. So, his "voluntary" choice is now to either die or let his family die. Do you honestly think that such a contract should be honored?

Yes. Here are his options...

Accept Deal: Peasant dies, family lives
Reject deal: Peasant dies, family dies

What's the problem? Nobody if forcing the peasant to accept your deal, but it's the only option that makes sense.

I feel like you're appealing to emotion because you can't make a logical argument against voluntary contracts.

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that there's a difference between real debt and made up debt. If you live in a specific area (country) where there are services set up that you may or may not use, you pay for them. That's a real debt. An extortionist has not done anything for you but still wants to take your money.
And while we're at it. We're talking about money. The thing that has value just because the state is allowed to tax us.

Are you arguing than an individual can accrue debts for the provision of services of which they never consented?

[NghtRppr]

Are you arguing than an individual can accrue debts for the provision of services of which they never consented?

If he is then I'll be sending him my bill for "B2C's house waving service" whereby I drive by his house, wave at it and he owes me a million dollars.

[wb3]

There is a principle that piling on debt to a debtor, it will become the lenders fault not the debtors. Due diligence, mitigate damages, etc...

You must not lend more than you are willing to forgive. If the loan and/or contract is written correctly it will hurt the debtor as much as the creditor.

Credit Card companies don't get any sympathy from me, because they use a trick of math to keep people in debt. They use statistical behavior models to determine payment schedules.  They go into the contract fully aware that they don't expect people to pay their bills in whole at the end of the month. They even punish those who do, by adding a surcharge for paperwork processing.

[JA37]

Yes, I think it should be honored. There's a difference between going on board a ship voluntarily and being kidnapped and carried on board, just like there is a difference between voluntarily immigrating to a country and being born there. The former implies consent to the laws of the land while the latter does not, even if you remain there instead of moving. That's the extent to which that analogy is relevant. Don't read more into it than that.

If I don't offer the guy the deal, his family starves anyways. Somehow by giving him the means to save them I'm harming him?

So, if the cable company starts sending you a bill even though you didn't request their services and don't intend to use them, you're going to pay it? Also, money can exist privately without government. Gold has been used as a medium of exchange and stored value longer than fiat currency. I feel sorry for people that can't even conceive of a system not based on aggression and coercion. The fact we're on the Bitcoin forums where you make the claim that money only has value because of the government is very ironic.

You're exploiting the situatioin and his misfortune. There's only one option he can take and you know it too. It's not a free choice, it's coersion.

If I live in a house that had cable before I moved in, and I knew that when I moved in, I can't really refuse to pay, can I? Regardless if I use it or not.
Yes, money can exist without government, I agree to that. I'm saying that the money that you claim as yours (fiat money) has value because of the government and the taxes that they take. That money is guaranteed to have some value by the government. Where I'm at the inflation target is about 2%, so I have reason to assume that the value won't drop by much more than that. And that inflation gives me incentive to invest my money in business that pays more.
I like the technical merits of bitcoin although I'm not quite sure what it's useful for, and I also recognize that it is VERY high risk. There is nothing backing bitcoin.

[NghtRppr]

You're exploiting the situatioin and his misfortune. There's only one option he can take and you know it too. It's not a free choice, it's coersion.

So, you're saying that it's alright if I let him and his family starve but it's not alright to make him an offer whereby he is able to save his family? That really makes no sense to me.

If I live in a house that had cable before I moved in, and I knew that when I moved in, I can't really refuse to pay, can I? Regardless if I use it or not.

I don't see how this is analogous to my situation. Are you saying that before I exited my mother's birth canal I knew that I was going to be subject to taxes and therefore I shouldn't have been born if I didn't agree to it? That's plainly false. I'm not some guy moving into a house. I'm a guy kidnapped and taken on board a ship while asleep.