jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:16:57 PM |
|
you seem to be interested more in spamming links and copypasta than having an open and honest dialogue
seriously people... please argue your own points. Enough with the youtube videos and links, etc. If you can't explain a point or concept in a few short sentences or paragraphs, and in plain, simple English, you probably shouldn't be talking about it. I don't think you can rationally discuss certain "isms" with certain people. They have too many preconceived notions of what they thinks it means or implies. To me, anarchy and capitalism are similar in that they both are correctly devoid of institutional coercion. Anarchy, however, throws out the baby with the bathwater in that it doesn't recognize the rule of law at all.
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:21:54 PM |
|
1) Acknowledgement of {personal, with exceptions in regards to land}property rights and self ownership 2) adherence to the non-aggression principle
You must accept that property rights and the non-aggression principle are fundamentally incompatible for two reasons. First, all property was acquired through violence and therefore must be declared NULL AND VOID in a society which will truly honor any non-aggression principle Second, unless you will begin your new society by SEIZING all property and redistributing it EQUALLY to all people of Earth, you cannot ENFORCE property rights, which presuppose wealth inequality, without systemic use of coercion and violence, AGAIN violating the non-aggression principle. The reason capitalism and non-violence are incompatible is because capitalism IS inequality, and inequality IS violence. Without systematic top-down hierarchical violence, society would very rapidly return to the homeostasis of relative equality. Think on it, the poorest among us have no food or shelter. Do you think they would NOT seize these resources for themselves if it wasn't for the guaranteed consequence of state violence? Of course they would. In fact, many of them do so ANYWAY because the suffering of starvation is greater than the suffering of prison. Would you call a starving person taking food to feed themselves a violent act? If so, you are a fool and not worth debating. If not, you have just forfeited your entire argument about property rights in a society of non-aggression. Taking property (inanimate objects) is not violence. Hurting human beings is violence. Letting human beings starve is violence. Letting human beings die of exposure is violence
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:23:49 PM |
|
Anarchy, however, throws out the baby with the bathwater in that it doesn't recognize the rule of law at all.
You had me until that last sentence. This is exactly how people argue against bitcoin claiming it is unregulated and chaotic when nothing can be further from the truth. Anarchy does recognize laws and governments can exist as long as self ownership, and the non-aggression principle is recognized. I understand it may be un-intuitive because we are so familiar with rules, laws and regulation to be enforced through the violence of the state, but anarchists posit the existence of less corruptible and more efficient ways to regulate without coercion.... and Bitcoin is one example.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:25:41 PM |
|
Anarchy, however, throws out the baby with the bathwater in that it doesn't recognize the rule of law at all.
You had me until that last sentence. This is exactly how people argue against bitcoin claiming it is unregulated and chaotic when nothing can be further from the truth. Anarchy does recognize laws and governments can exist as long as self ownership, and the non-aggression principle is recognized. I understand it may be un-intuitive because we are so familiar with rules, laws and regulation to be enforced through the violence of the state, but anarchists posit the existence of less corruptible and more efficient ways to regulate without coercion.... and Bitcoin is one example. I was going off the standard dictionary definition: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.I take your point.
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:29:17 PM |
|
Anarchy, however, throws out the baby with the bathwater in that it doesn't recognize the rule of law at all.
You had me until that last sentence. This is exactly how people argue against bitcoin claiming it is unregulated and chaotic when nothing can be further from the truth. Anarchy does recognize laws and governments can exist as long as self ownership, and the non-aggression principle is recognized. I understand it may be un-intuitive because we are so familiar with rules, laws and regulation to be enforced through the violence of the state, but anarchists posit the existence of less corruptible and more efficient ways to regulate without coercion.... and Bitcoin is one example. I was going off the standard dictionary definition: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.“Anarcho”-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist — you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As “anarcho”-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists. Once again, both the history and current practice of capitalism shows that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who claims otherwise has not been paying attention.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:30:54 PM |
|
Anarchy, however, throws out the baby with the bathwater in that it doesn't recognize the rule of law at all.
You had me until that last sentence. This is exactly how people argue against bitcoin claiming it is unregulated and chaotic when nothing can be further from the truth. Anarchy does recognize laws and governments can exist as long as self ownership, and the non-aggression principle is recognized. I understand it may be un-intuitive because we are so familiar with rules, laws and regulation to be enforced through the violence of the state, but anarchists posit the existence of less corruptible and more efficient ways to regulate without coercion.... and Bitcoin is one example. I was going off the standard dictionary definition: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.“Anarcho”-capitalists claim to be anarchists because they say that they oppose government. As noted in the last section, they use a dictionary definition of anarchism. However, this fails to appreciate that anarchism is a political theory. As dictionaries are rarely politically sophisticated things, this means that they fail to recognise that anarchism is more than just opposition to government, it is also marked a opposition to capitalism (i.e. exploitation and private property). Thus, opposition to government is a necessary but not sufficient condition for being an anarchist — you also need to be opposed to exploitation and capitalist private property. As “anarcho”-capitalists do not consider interest, rent and profits (i.e. capitalism) to be exploitative nor oppose capitalist property rights, they are not anarchists. Define capitalism then, because I honestly think you don't understand it.
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:32:22 PM |
|
Define capitalism then, because I honestly think you don't understand it. I can define capitalism in three words: Violence and exploitation. Once again, both the history and current practice of capitalism shows that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who claims otherwise has not been paying attention.
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:41:06 PM |
|
You must accept that property rights and the non-aggression principle are fundamentally incompatible for two reasons.
First, all property was acquired through violence and therefore must be declared NULL AND VOID in a society which will truly honor any non-aggression principle
Second, unless you will begin your new society by SEIZING all property and redistributing it EQUALLY to all people of Earth, you cannot ENFORCE property rights, which presuppose wealth inequality, without systemic use of coercion and violence, AGAIN violating the non-aggression principle.
Wait, are you merely advocating for no property rights in regards to land property and the means of production or all property including personal property? I have already addressed the nuances with land property and there doesn't need to be any land redistribution through violence as most land is uninhabited and owned by the state(an entity who lacks rights that I acknowledge). The reason capitalism and non-violence are incompatible is because capitalism IS inequality, and inequality IS violence. Without systematic top-down hierarchical violence, society would very rapidly return to the homeostasis of relative equality.
I have already acknowledged the existence of structural violence in capitalism and even went so far as to argue your point for you while you have yet to admit the inherent violence in your proposals. Would you call a starving person taking food to feed themselves a violent act? If so, you are a fool and not worth debating. If not, you have just forfeited your entire argument about property rights in a society of non-aggression.
Theft is indeed breaking the Non -aggression principle even when a homeless person commits it. If a homeless person asked for food I would willingly give it. If I wasn't around and he stole it to insure his survival I would understand and be fine with this act (even though it is breaking the NAP) as long as he acknowledged it, thanked me, and offered remuneration (which I would likely turn down and gift him what he stole). Anarcho-caps are humans too and not sociopathic assholes as you want to pigeon hole us into. I am sure you a a nice person with good intentions as well. Taking property is not violence. Hurting human beings is violence. Letting human beings starve is violence. Letting human beings die of exposure is violence
I would be interested to learn if an anarcho -communist society could solve these problems you are attempting to cure. History has not been kind to anarcho-communists, but perhaps you have the magic formula to make it happen? I encourage you to pursue your dreams.
|
|
|
|
CoinDiver
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:44:14 PM |
|
Anarchy literally means "without rulers". Anarcho-Capitalism literally means "Capitalism without rulers". Anarcho-Communism literally means "Communism without rulers".
None of these concepts are hard to understand.
What I want is a term for "without coercion". I propose "anarcere".
|
|
|
|
inBitweTrust
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:47:34 PM |
|
I was going off the standard dictionary definition: absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal.
I take your point.
I take your point as well....and will admit that dictionaries definition is unworkable as reality imposes all sorts of restrictions on our freedoms through the laws of biology and physics alone.
|
|
|
|
Icardi09
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:47:51 PM |
|
yeah ever since I got involved with bitcoins... my ideology is slowly changing from
being pro socialism to pro libertarianism...
I now feel happy and liberated when I think about the pleasures of personal wealth..
are you having such changes?
I appreciate that your ideology, but I do not think so. not too fanatical about an ideology. just take both sides of every ideology that
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 03:50:32 PM |
|
If a homeless person asked for food I would willingly give it. If I wasn't around and he stole it to insure his survival I would understand and be fine with this act (even though it is breaking the NAP) as long as he acknowledged it, thanked me, and offered remuneration (...) How generous of you! It's comforting to know you would be FINE with starving people feeding themselves, capitalist. You are so kind. What if he didn't thank you? What if he didn't offer remuneration? What if he didn't have anything to give in return for the food he took to fill his starving belly? Would you then resort to violence and/or enslavement to forcibly extract the value of the food he took from his body through forced-labor?
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 04:04:34 PM |
|
Define capitalism then, because I honestly think you don't understand it. I can define capitalism in three words: Violence and exploitation. Once again, both the history and current practice of capitalism shows that there can be no harmony of interests in an unequal society. Anyone who claims otherwise has not been paying attention.You are of course free to create your own definitions but it doesn't make for a very meaningful discussion when the very topic of debate or starting definitions aren't agreed on. The dictionary definition of capitalism is an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state.But we cannot even get to the question of whether trade should be private or state-run. Without the concept of property, trade cannot exist, And you don't believe in property.
|
|
|
|
cuddaloreappu (OP)
|
|
August 07, 2014, 04:42:16 PM |
|
I really find that most interesting people have a hard time cramming themselves into the catch-all boxes of "socialist", "libertarian", "captialist", etc. I mean, each of these terms carries some truth, is built around solid motivations. But in the real world, all these motivations have to interact. For example, the "libertarian" who says that people should have the right to live their lives as they see fit has a solid point. But so does the "socialist" who says that no man lives in isolation; the choices of one person affect a whole community and we have to share the earth. Likewise, the capitalist who says that marketplaces need to be unmanipulated has solid motivation. The complicated thing is to bring all these motivations to bear on specific issues, that's what real people have to do. They have to weigh the factors in a given situation and decide their course of action, or the course of action that they support. Doing that in the real world often ends up mixing and matching from these idealogical extremes and to me, that's what makes the world an interesting place. Personally, I no longer try to subscribe to any of these extremes, instead, I recognize them as endpoints on a multidimensional continuum of ideas.
amazing, you put the words so nicely
|
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 05:45:16 PM |
|
Nailed it. Anarchists are the only ones to demand full power to the people.
|
|
|
|
GrandMasterB
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
|
|
August 07, 2014, 05:54:02 PM |
|
1) Acknowledgement of {personal, with exceptions in regards to land}property rights and self ownership 2) adherence to the non-aggression principle
Would you call a starving person taking food to feed themselves a violent act? If so, you are a fool and not worth debating. If not, you have just forfeited your entire argument about property rights in a society of non-aggression. Taking property (inanimate objects) is not violence. Hurting human beings is violence. Letting human beings starve is violence. Letting human beings die of exposure is violenceI appreciate your passion (though I ignored the wall of copy/paste) but I think you are tripping up on your own semantics. Lets just go according to the dictionary acceptance for some commong words. According to the dictionary inanimate is lifeless. An apple is alive. is taking it and eating it thereby violence in your definition? Here is Violence in dictionary. (using dictionary.com for quick reference) 1. swift and intense force: the violence of a storm. 2. rough or injurious physical force, action, or treatment: to die by violence. 3. an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence. 4. a violent act or proceeding. 5. rough or immoderate vehemence, as of feeling or language: the violence of his hatred. Letting someone starve isn't violence. Preventing them from reaching for food may be violence, but it depends if force is enacted on the person as a form of prevention. Watching someone starve may be selfish, but what if I or my daughter are starving as well? What most people forget is the complexity involved in a decision when a third party is introduced and the effect that has on single/two party decisions from that point on. Using the starving person as an example. If I stand in front of an apple so that another who is starving may not eat, because I am saving it for my own starving child then am I being violent? By your definition, someone eating the apple so that my child will starve is violent. Therefore I accept the violent act that will slay my daughter and do nothing. Then letting my child starve is a violencet act against my daughter. It's a catch 22. No matter if I stand aside or defend the apple I am being violent. Living according to your definition of violence I'm forced to consider the act that causes me the least amount of grief. I can't take much time with this decision or I will loose out. Coupled with the inevitablity of violence it's now pointless to avoid it. Therefore from this point on, whether there is a 3rd part involved or not I know I should not measure my action based on violence, since I will waste time and be faced with grief over a quicker thinker. I am now justified in tackling each situation not by how long it takes to reach a forgone conclusion + whether or not it will cause me grief, but simply whether or not it will cause me greater grief. Take the kind out of equation and change the apple to some seeds. We're both still starving. I want to plant the seeds so there will be more to eat. The other person just wants to eat the seeds. It will reach the same conclusion. Like I said before, being an anarchist (to me) is more an exercise in self restraint that is devoid of faith in societal structures. It is not about power in anyone's hands. It is about not exercising power on others.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 06:00:34 PM |
|
Nailed it. Anarchists are the only ones to demand full power to the people. lol. I certainly agree with "full power to the people". The question is, how is this accomplished? Marx and Bakunin could not agree. It is worth noting that Bitcoin implies ownership of property since one does in fact, own bitcoins as his or her personal property. ...as well as the fact that trade itself relies on property as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, abandoning the concept of property is not the solution.
|
|
|
|
Beliathon
|
|
August 07, 2014, 06:15:43 PM |
|
An apple is alive. is taking it and eating it thereby violence in your definition? Letting someone starve isn't violence. It is if you have surplus food and you're not sharing. It's also cruel, discompassionate, and inhumane. Same as when you have excess shelter and you're not sharing with those who have no shelter, and in fact relying on violence/force to keep them OUT of your unused shelter because you're waiting for someone with money to come along and provide you with a profit. Along 5th avenue in Manhattan there are many luxury apartments and condos that are empty all year. They are owned by wealthy europeans who use them as a way of hiding their wealth from local governments for tax purposes. They have some niece or nephew stay there a few days a year when passing through New York. Meanwhile the number of homeless grows each year... Such is the waste of capitalism. Using the starving person as an example. If I stand in front of an apple so that another who is starving may not eat, because I am saving it for my own starving child then am I being violent? That's a strawman argument and not at all what happens in modern (or historical) capitalism. This is the reality you are ignoring. 55% of food produced worldwide is wasted for the sake of maximizing profit.
|
|
|
|
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1008
Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political
|
|
August 07, 2014, 06:21:01 PM |
|
capitalism doesn't exist in any country.
|
|
|
|
|