Political compass! (who believes what?)

[kinghajj]

I'm curious about the reasons why a left libertarian would like Bitcoin. In my mind, if Bitcoin took over the world then your ideal society would be impossible to accomplish unless it is on small closed communities. Can anyone enlighten me?

I am by no means well-versed in anarchist theory (having just recently begun reading some Chomsky in my spare time,) but it seems to me that even in a socialist/communist economy, some kind of medium of exchange will be needed. BitCoin is attractive to me because it's highly democratic, and would seem to fit nicely in an anarchist society. Individuals wouldn't need money, but syndicates could use it to exchange for needed resources for their production.

Even if BitCoin is never used in a left anarchist society, in the short to medium term BitCoin seems like a worthwhile investment.

[1713498191]

1713498191

[1713498191]

1713498191

[1713498191]

1713498191

[SmokeTooMuch]

I think this really fits my way of thinking. I love the thought of a government that is based solely on trust , that can't compel me to pay taxes but i will pay as long as it does conform to most of my principles . The moment it drifts in a way i don't like i stop paying. As for drugs i really don't like restriction laws , they do nothing good except make those that don't care about offending the law getting more money for something that could be really easy to find. Big companies are "bad" but if people weren't ignorant then this companies would easily be compelled to do better then what they are doing now, if people are ignorant then though luck they should be abused. I would also love all religious thinking to disappear.  

+ 1 because that's exactly my point of view
and + over 9000 because this is the first "first post" I've seen on the forum that is really useful

[abyssobenthonic]

Why would left libertarians not be happy with that?  As long as they can do whatever they want inside their community, they are fine, aren't they?

Yeah, I guess. I have this notion though that they seriously hate capitalism and will probably be unhappy until it is destroyed. Also they would possibly have to trade in a capitalistic way with the rest of the world in order to sustain the quality of life of their communities, adding to their unhappiness as they will feel exploited once again.

Define capitalism.

While I've said I don't want to dwell on terminological issues, I can't resist making a point about "capitalism" and "socialism." Rand used to identify certain terms and ideas as "anti-concepts," that is, terms that actually function to obscure our understanding rather than facilitating it, making it harder for us to grasp other, legitimate concepts; one important category of anti-concepts is what Rand called the "package deal," referring to any term whose meaning conceals an implicit presupposition that certain things go together that in actuality do not.  Although Rand would not agree with the following examples, I've become convinced that the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are really anti-concepts of the package-deal variety.

Libertarians sometimes debate whether the "real" or "authentic" meaning of a term like "capitalism" is (a) the free market, or (b) government favoritism toward business, or (c) the separation between labor and ownership, an arrangement neutral between the other two; Austrians tend to use the term in the first sense; individualist anarchists in the Tuckerite tradition tend to use it in the second or third.  But in ordinary usage, I fear, it actually stands for an amalgamation of incompatible meanings.

Suppose I were to invent a new word, "zaxlebax," and define it as "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument." That's the definition — "a metallic sphere, like the Washington Monument. " In short, I build my ill-chosen example into the definition. Now some linguistic subgroup might start using the term "zaxlebax" as though it just meant "metallic sphere," or as though it just meant "something of the same kind as the Washington Monument." And that's fine. But my definition incorporates both, and thus conceals the false assumption that the Washington Monument is a metallic sphere; any attempt to use the term "zaxlebax," meaning what I mean by it, involves the user in this false assumption. That's what Rand means by a package-deal term.

Now I think the word "capitalism," if used with the meaning most people give it, is a package-deal term. By "capitalism" most people mean neither the free market simpliciter nor the prevailing neomercantilist system simpliciter. Rather, what most people mean by "capitalism" is this free-market system that currently prevails in the western world. In short, the term "capitalism" as generally used conceals an assumption that the prevailing system is a free market. And since the prevailing system is in fact one of government favoritism toward business, the ordinary use of the term carries with it the assumption that the free market is government favoritism toward business.

And similar considerations apply to the term "socialism." Most people don't mean by "socialism" anything so precise as state ownership of the means of production; instead they really mean something more like "the opposite of capitalism." Then if "capitalism" is a package-deal term, so is "socialism" — it conveys opposition to the free market, and opposition to neomercantilism, as though these were one and the same.

And that, I suggest, is the function of these terms: to blur the distinction between the free market and neomercantilism. Such confusion prevails because it works to the advantage of the statist establishment: those who want to defend the free market can more easily be seduced into defending neomercantilism, and those who want to combat neomercantilism can more easily be seduced into combating the free market. Either way, the state remains secure.

I don't mean to suggest that evil statists have deliberately conspired to corrupt our language to serve their own nefarious ends. That sometimes happens, of course, but it's not necessary. Rather, a perverse invisible-hand process is at work: the prevailing use of the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" persists because it serves to preserve the statist system of which it is a part. Think of it as spontaneous ordure. (Sorry.)

[em3rgentOrdr]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited.  What if I want economic globalization to serve the interests of both the trans-national corporations, humanity, individuals, and small businesses?  And by what means am I able to use economic globalization to serve some party?  To me, the presumption implied by the question is that there is some means (e.g. voting) or entity (e.g. a state) by which I can influence the outcome.  The question is almost inherently statist (although I suppose that there are indeed non-statist, voluntary means by which a single person can influence the result of economic globalization).

[JohnDoe]

Define capitalism.

a) free market/laissez-faire.

[em3rgentOrdr]

Define capitalism.

a) free market/laissez-faire.

Yeah...this is why I have stopped bothering using the term "Capitalism".  As Roderick explains, it is an anti-concept.  If I do use the term, I like to hyphenate it as in "I am a free-market anti-capitalist."

Roderick Long FTW.

[caveden]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited. 

+1

[sortedmush]

Well, for starters picture that as a "planisphere" representing a globe. In fact neither of the 4 corners is faraway from each other, they round about to be the same.
The bad thing isn't to have strong stands, but to have strong stands on everything that is asked, this alone indicates a person willing to stuck the nose on every subject, whether it interests him, if he has something to do with it or not at all "OR" one of those who's blindfold and follows some sort of "one size fits all" ideology, one of those intended to "deal" with all subjects from economy to social to how to get laid.

Despite the derogatory language you use, I fail to see how being consistent is a bad thing. For instance, if I were to apply the non aggression principle across the board, I would strongly agree and strongly disagree where appropriate. Would this make me a dangerous fanatic? Or a wackjob?

In your opinion, Is consistency preferable to inconsistency?

[grondilu]

Sorry, but I read the first question, "If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.", and realized that this quiz was totally biased, poorly written, and limited. 

+1

I also thought this question was totally biased, but then I just answered "Disagree", as I don't understand what the heck the epression "serve humanity" means.

[BCEmporium]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

People on the orange are mildly dangerous, they would accept some arguing on a few subjects, but there's something they hold as a "holy Grail" and will react violently if contested (thus claiming they're "self-defending").

People closer to the middle is more up to negotiate positions. One in the middle (0,0) would probably be a nice guy, but wouldn't be able to make up his mind keep changing ideas at every 5 seconds... but I doubt someone can achieve that position.

EDIT: BTW, this test is just a toy, it can't measure "EXACTLY" nothing, as some can be so "strong" towards a single subject and relative towards many others, moving to the middle even being fanatic. It doesn't mean those falling to corners and edges to not have too much "absolute truths", but even those in the middle can be fanatics of something, just not so wide.

[grondilu]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

Yeah, I think you're right.  We should make sure everyone takes this test, and then we'll put all people who fall in the red squares into jail, until we execute them for the greater good.  Hum wait...  if I think this way, shouldn't I be placed in a red square too?  Oh gosh...

[BCEmporium]

Yeah, I think you're right.  We should make sure everyone takes this test, and then we'll put all people who fall in the red squares into jail, until we execute them for the greater good.  Hum wait...  if I think this way, shouldn't I be placed in a red square too?  Oh gosh...

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square 
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

[grondilu]

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square  
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

Also, most people believe it's not morally acceptable to judge people for their beliefs.  People must be judge for their acts, not their thoughts.  There is no such think that a "mental criminal".

But now, even this is nothing but a belief.  You can agree with it, or not.   And if you don't you are probably in a red square anyway.   This whole thing is too complex to make any sense.    I think I'll become a nihilist after this debate  

[BCEmporium]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

[deadlizard]

Yup, acting that way would put us all in the red square  
One to the middle would most likely believe "people can change", and indeed does as they accumulate life experiences, and would wait for it. And then you would have those others who, being in the middle, are too strong upon a single subject alone. As this test goes around many subjects and not measuring how "strongly" do you agree to one particular issue.

Also, most people believe it's not morally acceptable to judge people for their beliefs.  People must be judge for their acts, not their thoughts.  There is no such think that a "mental criminal".

But now, even this is nothing but a belief.  You can agree with it, or not.   And if you don't you are probably in a red square anyway.   This whole thing is too complex to make any sense.    I think I'll become a nihilist after this debate  

nihilism is Doubleplusungood crimethink
Doubleplusungood crimethink is paticularly plusdisgustful and is punished by Removethink if it is found to be ungood enough

[The Script]

That's not consistency, that's to have strong positions towards all and everything, which is by itself violent. That "non-violence" principle has way too many nags and bugs. Specially that all of it keeps a secondary threat of "self-defense". "Self-defense" is OK if you're dealing with people one can negotiate with, but to people in the edges and corners negotiation is impossible, so they end up with violent reactions claiming to be self-defending.

A bit like the view of Bin Laden, he wasn't "attacking" WTC, he was "self-defending" of something that contradicts his fanatic views and therefore was, for him, a threat.

I colored some squares for a better demonstrative purpose (as I'm not English, American or even use English as native language, native would be Portuguese):



People falling to the red are extremely dangerous, those stand strong for all and everything and you can't try to deal with them as their minds are set (and if they're muslims probably "set to blow"). It doesn't quite matter on which of the corners they stand, they're equally dangerous.

People on the orange are mildly dangerous, they would accept some arguing on a few subjects, but there's something they hold as a "holy Grail" and will react violently if contested (thus claiming they're "self-defending").

People closer to the middle is more up to negotiate positions. One in the middle (0,0) would probably be a nice guy, but wouldn't be able to make up his mind keep changing ideas at every 5 seconds... but I doubt someone can achieve that position.

EDIT: BTW, this test is just a toy, it can't measure "EXACTLY" nothing, as some can be so "strong" towards a single subject and relative towards many others, moving to the middle even being fanatic. It doesn't mean those falling to corners and edges to not have too much "absolute truths", but even those in the middle can be fanatics of something, just not so wide.

Look back at my graph.  Now at yours, now back to mine, NOW BACK to YOURS.  Hmm, I guess I'm just barely on the edge of one of the red squares.  Guess I'll have to take the test a THIRD time to make sure I'm all the way in. 

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand.  "Extremists" are often the ones that change the world, for the better or for the worse, but that doesn't make them evil.  Dangerous, perhaps, to the status quo and ruling class.  As far as I am concerned as long as you reject the initiation of violence, theft, and coercion I don't care if you fall in the left or right corner.  If you do not aggress against me and do not steal my property then we should have no problems.  It's the upper scales of the graph I am worried about, left and right.

[The Script]

We ARE too complex to make sense...
BTW, you don't have to be in the red square to be fanatic. Let's say in a particular subject you Agree or Disagree so much that would kill in the spot if you see someone doing it otherwise.
The "danger" of the red square is about mostly Fascism, as one understands that ALL subjects (at least ALL of the test) are of his concern for him to have strong positions on them all. - this at least would mean one believes himself to be a sort of universal judge, able to distinguish right and wrong universally and know what's good for all.

I do not believe this makes sense.  Fascism is characterized by strong authoritarian beliefs as well as belief in Nationality, Race and the State.  Fascists believe in a strong ruling authority.  Your red boxes in the upper corners might be considered fascists but the lower ones cannot be.  By the definition of the chart the lower you go the less authoritarian, and therefore the less fascist, you are.  People in the lower reaches of the chart believe in very little or no structured authority.  They just have different opinions on what that would/should look like.  Just because you strongly believe something does not mean you would force it upon other people.

[BCEmporium]

The Script,

It's the most "funny" feature of that graph, to be an "ultimate libertarian" you've to be an "ultimate fascist", as both are extreme positions which never come to happen without authoritarianism and violence. So to end, the issue is just that, that position is that you do strongly believe so much and WILL impose it to others [if given a chance] (otherwise what would be the sense of such way of thinking?!)

Radicalism changes the World to the worse only, there's no single record where it has changed the World to the best; not by religion nor politics.

[BCEmporium]

If you get 4 guys from the extremes:

Extreme Left/Libertarian vs Extreme Right/Libertarian, the ELL will take or occupy a place belonging to the ERL, ERL will attack the ELL in self-defense of his property, whereas the ELL will attack the ERL in self-defense, as he believes ERL has no property at all.

Extreme Left/Authoritarian vs Extreme Right/Authoritarian will render the exact same behavior as the ELL vs ELR.

Extreme Left/Authoritarian vs Extreme Left/Libertarian, they will find to have more in common than anything else and will not fight at all, probably the ELA will "restrain" the ELL due to lack of reasoning of the second, but that's all. On the same line an ERA will not fight an ERL.

If you cross them:

ELL vs ERA = ELL vs ELR except that ERA are normally more organized, leaving ELL in worse shape.
ERL vs ELA same as ELL vs ERA.

Different? Are they?

[caveden]

Basically you are arguing that any sort of "radicalism" is bad and that we should all hold some form of "moderate" political beliefs otherwise we are "dangerous".  I reject this proposition out of hand. 

+1

Let's never forget that those advocating for complete slavery abolition on the end of the 18th century and beginning of 19th were viewed by the majority as "radical extremists". Abolishing slavery was indeed a very radical and extreme idea at that time.