bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?

[forevernoob]

Alright been reading through all the pages, but skipping all the copy & paste stuff.
I still don't understand how libertarian-socialism or "anarcho-communism" etc, would work.
I just want an answer to this question:

How you would tax people without breaking the NAP?

[commandrix]

I ignored all the copy-paste stuff too. But the thing I like about capitalism in its purist form is that it discourages the welfare queens and the ones who try to blame everybody else but themselves for their own bad decisions. In a capitalist system, if somebody comes up with a better, more efficient way to do something, it won't really matter if he started out as part of the factory laborer class if he can patent it before anybody else finds out about it, protect his patent and bring his new product or service to market so everybody can benefit from it. In a socialist system, the invention would simply be taken from him and used without compensating the original inventor.

[practicaldreamer]

I ignored all the copy-paste stuff too.

Funnily enough I didn't - I actually read it. I can see why you would ignore it - I often do. But in this particular case Beliathons post was relevant and interesting. It explained clearly why, in short, "anarcho capitalism" is a bullshit oxymoron, and why "libertarianism" is simply bullshit. I thought it was particularly pertinent of him to quote the article on this forum - because I believe that on this forum more than most it needed saying. Kind of preaching to the converted as far as I personally am concerned, but I think that for some of you it might well be worth, if you can spare it, the 15 minutes effort to read.

   The 1% who own most of this world are libertarian folks - they might even be "anarcho capitalists"    Haven't you stopped to wonder why ?

   Bitcoin is exciting (for me at least) because it offers the potential to stifle the "finance capitalists" source of usury derived revenue/profit. In that sense it could democratise money. But lets not be under any illusions here - the rest of their (property) armoury will be left completely untouched - and the biggest bitcoin wallets will still be on Wall Street.

In a socialist system, the invention would simply be taken from him and used without compensating the original inventor.

  What - you mean like what happened to Mikhail Kalashnikov ? But then he did have this crazy idea whereby "he was always motivated by service to his country rather than money" - crazy mixed up kid hey ?    

   What about open source ? Bitcoin ?
        You're missing the point mate  .  

[Mike Christ]

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

prop·er·ty  (prpr-t)
n. pl. prop·er·ties
1.
a. Something owned; a possession.

You invented a definition here; use standard definitions from now on.  Now, using the standard definition, we can see that it is not in reference to "inanimate objects", it is in reference to things which are owned.  Ownership is a concept I'm sure you're familiar with: if someone takes your kidneys, will you say it's non-violent?  No, you will not.  Will you stop him from taking it?  Yes, you will.  Why?  Because they're your kidneys, you own them.  Likewise, if someone takes your food and shelter, or the means you upkeep your food and shelter such as savings, machinery, and so forth, is it still non-violent?  No; you're depriving someone of something and they will starve as a result (as you said later there: letting human beings starve is violence.)  Here is the first contradiction you've made (at least in this small excerpt): you are the first to starve a human being whilst insisting letting human beings starve is violence.  This is called by many things, but let's keep it simple: you are a hypocrite.

The next mistake you made is this: aggression and violence are two separate things.  Adherents to the NAP are not against violence; they're against initiation of force.  This means, if you try to take my kidneys, or any other property I own, I'm going to stop you.  With violence.  

Finally: letting a human being starve of his own accord is the equivalent of saying, "You have harmed another human being by existing", which is fundamentally the political form of original sin: "you have breathed, you are therefore guilty."  While this may be true in the fantastical land of Beliathon (in which case, I nominate you as the first martyr), in the political philosophy of libertarianism, you are not an aggressor by doing nothing; we know this to be true, because, much like 'non-religious' is not a religion, doing nothing is not an action; because violence is an action, the idea that you can have "violent inaction" is a paradox at worst and an incompatible statement at best; it's an "action without action", it is null, it means nothing, you literally cannot do that.  Ergo, to assert that "letting a human being starve" is violent is not only a testament to your ability to think clearly (kinda hard to argue with emotion, but if that's your plan of action, so be it), but you have also assigned the starving man as the most violent man in his life, for none is more responsible for his well-being than he.  Great job!  I'll tip a fedora and stroke a neckbeard in your likeness.

[Beliathon]

You invented a definition here; use standard definitions from now on.  Now, using the standard definition, we can see that it is not in reference to "inanimate objects", it is in reference to things which are owned.  Ownership is a concept I'm sure you're familiar with: if someone takes your kidneys, will you say it's non-violent? No, you will not.  Will you stop him from taking it?  Yes, you will.  Why?  Because they're your kidneys, you own them.

ROFL, I don't "own" my kidneys, they are a part of me, without them I die. I AM my kidneys. Further you cannot "take" my kidneys without doing (serious) violence against me - cutting me open. Nice strawman though. Nah just kidding, it was the shittiest, stupidest strawman in the thread.

Likewise, if someone takes your food and shelter, or the means you upkeep your food and shelter such as savings, machinery, and so forth, is it still non-violent?

Context matters. What's the context of this hypothetical? Am I a capitalist exploiting hundreds or thousands of workers for personal gain? An oppressor profiting from the suffering of others? What is this person's relationship to me? Is this person starving or homeless? Am I? Are they a slave? A wage-slave?

aggression and violence are two separate things.  Adherents to the NAP are not against violence; they're against initiation of force.  This means, if you try to take my kidneys, or any other property I own, I'm going to stop you.  With violence.

The fact that you cannot comprehend the difference between vital organs and property means it's probably safe to assume that you're not intelligent enough to engage in a fruitful debate here. I'm going to go ahead and stop responding to you now.

Yet another useless economic fundamentalist, I'm afraid you add little to nothing to the conversation.

[forevernoob]

Beliathon, forgive me for being of lower intelligence than you. But I have a question.
What if you have to use force to take property to distribute equally? Isn't that violence?

[GrandMasterB]

An apple is alive. is taking it and eating it thereby violence in your definition?

http://www.troll.me/images/futurama-fry/not-sure-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid.jpg

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.

Can't take getting called out on the fact that you're changing the definition of words and using them however you want? You're giving anarchism a bad name by behaving like an asshole to anyone who is just trying to have a conversation with you. People can't conceptualize anarchy because they're overcome by fearful thoughts that an asshole is going to shit all over everyone and everything. Thank you for proving them right.

My points were about the difficulty in grasping the fundmental psychology of an anarchist's concept of non-violence and I based it on your bullshit example that takes words out of context.

You.
Fucking.
Troll.

[Beliathon]

What if you have to use force to take property to distribute equally? Isn't that violence?

Given that cryptocurrency exists, that hypothetical is totally pointless. We don't need to use force - not anymore. Wealth is being redistributed as we speak.  --> https://bitcoinwisdom.com/

But.. here's a question for you to ponder.. when is violence justified? Are there any situations in which it is a "conditional good"? For example, is a slave justified in using violence to free himself from the bonds of slavery?

You. Fucking. Troll.

Destroying weak-ass arguments doesn't make me a troll, it just makes me better at critical reason and argument than you, economic fundamentalist.

[hikedoon]

   Fuck all the .ism's. 
          I'm making it up as I go along.
       
   
       
   
     
   
 

[jonald_fyookball]

   The 1% who own most of this world are libertarian folks  

No they are not.  The 1% are monopoly men.  Corporatists.  They do not want a true free market.

If the 1% who owned the world were libertarians, the Libertarian party would be dominant.
In actuality, the 1% owns the 2-horse race of Republicans and Democrats.

[forevernoob]

What if you have to use force to take property to distribute equally? Isn't that violence?

Given that cryptocurrency exists, that hypothetical is totally pointless. We don't need to use force - not anymore. Wealth is being redistributed as we speak.  --> https://bitcoinwisdom.com/

But wait what? That's not true at all there is a lot of wealthy crypto users. And a lot of very poor ones. That looks like inequality to me.

But.. here's a question for you to ponder.. when is violence justified? Are there any situations in which it is a "conditional good"? For example, is a slave justified in using violence to free himself from the bonds of slavery?

Yes I get what you are trying to say. And I agree to some extent violence might be a necessary mean.
But let's forget about the food and slaves for a moment.
Is violence a necessary mean to redistribute all property?

I can understand you viewpoint if you have a starving man that needs food. It's essential for his survival. But what about a rich guy that has real nice jewelery (which has sentimental value to him since he inherited it).
Would you use violence to take the jewelery to redistribute?
Where do you draw the line?

[rugrats]

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?

Why would you allow your beliefs to be constrained by any particular ideology?

I sometimes laugh when I see born-again Libertarians castigating the personal choices of others.

[AnswerQuestion]

   The 1% who own most of this world are libertarian folks  

No they are not.  The 1% are monopoly men.  Corporatists.  They do not want a true free market.

If the 1% who owned the world were libertarians, the Libertarian party would be dominant.
In actuality, the 1% owns the 2-horse race of Republicans and Democrats.

a large percentage of the 1% are liberal elitists. They want to control the world via the government and spend a lot of money trying to do so.

[Beliathon]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

[jonald_fyookball]

   The 1% who own most of this world are libertarian folks  

No they are not.  The 1% are monopoly men.  Corporatists.  They do not want a true free market.

If the 1% who owned the world were libertarians, the Libertarian party would be dominant.
In actuality, the 1% owns the 2-horse race of Republicans and Democrats.

a large percentage of the 1% are liberal elitists. They want to control the world via the government and spend a lot of money trying to do so.

"liberal" is not "libertarian".  "Liberal" political point of view generally advocates a large degree of personal freedom but
not very much economic freedom (i.e. liberal democrats who want lots of government spending and taxes).   "Conservative"
point of view has more economic freedom but lower personal freedom. Libertarians
advocate both economic and personal freedom.

[twiifm]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

A libertarian telling other people what they should do.   

[Beliathon]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

A libertarian telling other people what they should do.   

I wish compassion didn't need to be preached in this world, but it does, so I do...

[jonald_fyookball]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

A libertarian telling other people what they should do.   

I wish compassion didn't need to be preached in this world, but it does, so I do...

hows the job hunt going 

[Beliathon]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

A libertarian telling other people what they should do.  

I wish compassion didn't need to be preached in this world, but it does, so I do...

hows the job hunt going  

Poorly, but I have some freelance work to keep my afloat and my girlfriend has moved in with me, which helps a lot (cuts my rent in half).

[forevernoob]

Where do you draw the line?

I let compassion guide my ethics, rather than selfishness and isolation. You should too.

But who decides when compassion should be felt for another human being? You?
I don't think we can a functional society if every individual can suddenly decide to take property just because they feel someone else need it more.

At least with democratic socialism you vote on what should be taken.