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

[MadAlpha]

Now just completed watching atlas shrugged movie..going to buy the novels too and read..

also watching this documentary

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace/

Atlas Shrugged is the best book I have read. Suggest you read it ASAP.

Good luck on your journey.  Don't let any haters stop you.

[Timo Y]

Libertarianism is not incompatible with socialism.  It is only incompatible with coercive socialism.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor.  However, this redistribution doesn't have to happen by coercive means.

There are also non-coercive ways of achieving this: ostracism, shaming, persuasion, education, prizes, fame, social norms, "whuffie", etc  

The crypto economy has the potential to formalize and automate these redistribution mechanisms (see Vitalik Buterin's SocialCoin idea), making them so effective that coercive, tax-based redistribution is no longer necessary.

[MadAlpha]

Libertarianism it not incompatible with socialism.  It is only incompatible with coercive socialism.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor.  However, this redistribution doesn't have to happen by coercive means.

There are also non-coercive ways of achieving this: ostracism, shaming, persuasion, education, prizes, fame, social norms, "whuffie", etc  

The crypto economy has the potential to formalize and automate these redistribution mechanisms (see Vitalik Buterin's SocialCoin idea), making them so effective that coercive, tax-based redistribution is no longer necessary.

Moral values of the two systems are incompatible.

In socialism, the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" to take money from one person and give it to another. It is the belief that some people have a claim in the work of others.

In libertarianism the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" that a person gets to keep the fruits of their labor. It is the belief that people have no claim on the work of others.

Practical matters, like how the transfer of wealth is done in socialism, are totally secondary. Obviously you could make arguments for the "lesser evil" of non-coercive methods.

[CreamyPie]

If you dive into money pool, it will surely make you greedy

Ofcourse, its not everything.

[Timo Y]

Moral values of the two systems are incompatible.

In socialism, the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" to take money from one person and give it to another. It is the belief that some people have a claim in the work of others.

In libertarianism the moral value is that it is "right", "fair" or "just" that a person gets to keep the fruits of their labor. It is the belief that people have no claim on the work of others.

Practical matters, like how the transfer of wealth is done in socialism, are totally secondary. Obviously you could make arguments for the "lesser evil" of non-coercive methods.

I think the basic moral values of the two systems are similar, it's just that socialists have a different definition of "fruits of labor". When they take from the rich and give to the poor, the justification is that it never belonged to the rich in the first place.

The problem with political ideologies, and that includes socialism and libertarianism, is that they base their arguments on ill-defined and messy terms and then at the end they pop out suspiciously clean and elegant conclusions. For example: What does "fruits of labor" actually mean? Labor is just another word for "doing stuff". Sure, if you do stuff it has consequences, but how do you decide which of those consequences are "fruits"?

Elegant moral theories that claim to have a definite answer for every conceivable moral problem should be taken with a grain of salt. Especially if they are based on verbal arguments alone. The human language is incapable of capturing the complexities of the real world.

That's why I don't do ideology.  I treat each moral problem individually, based on reason, evidence, and intuitive morality.

[herzmeister]

to take money from one person and give it to another.

That's not what socialism is or means.

right, "Socialism" does not mean what most US-Americans think and how they use that word all the time. The term "Socialism" originally meant workers to be in control of the means of production, i.e. co-ops instead of bosses. It doesn't say anything about a (welfare) state.

Bitcoin is perfectly compatible with that kind of socialism.

It's also a more natural form of self-organization in a truly anarchistic society. Historically, if workers felt exploited by their capitalist bosses, they went on strike, mutiny, and eventually took over the factory, i.e. the means of production. Only the old establishment's countermeasures prevented that from happening further, i.e. through guards, police, etc. (That's why both von Mises and Rand were not anarchists, and were convinced that a minimal state is necessary, s. Night-watchman state.)

Reality unfortunately is not like Ayn Rand's Freudian ramblings. The first, old capitalists were not "heroes", they did not "work hard" to build the factory, they were merely privileged by being in the same gentlemen's clubs as the old aristocracy and political leaders. http://exiledonline.com/recovered-economic-history-everyone-but-an-idiot-knows-that-the-lower-classes-must-be-kept-poor-or-they-will-never-be-industrious/

[cuddaloreappu]

Libertarianism it not incompatible with socialism.  It is only incompatible with coercive socialism.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor.  However, this redistribution doesn't have to happen by coercive means.

There are also non-coercive ways of achieving this: ostracism, shaming, persuasion, education, prizes, fame, social norms, "whuffie", etc 

The crypto economy has the potential to formalize and automate these redistribution mechanisms (see Vitalik Buterin's SocialCoin idea), making them so effective that coercive, tax-based redistribution is no longer necessary.

here is the link to this article
http://bitcoinmagazine.com/7235/bootstrapping-a-decentralized-autonomous-corporation-part-3-identity-corp/

[Beliathon]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:



Here in the USA, we're well on our way to Sao Paulo style inequality. Fortunately for wage slaves everywhere, we'll probably have a revolution before we get there.

There is a reason the word "libertarian" means something totally different if you go anywhere else in the world and talk to anyone who isn't a clueless white male American who stopped reading books after he finished Atlas Shrugged in 9th grade.

[MoonRise]

I too have found myself changing. My attitude towards world, towards people have changed after doing lot of bitcoin transactions. Money spoils life sometimes

[cuddaloreappu]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:



Here in the USA, we're well on our way to Sao Paulo style inequality. Fortunately for wage slaves everywhere, we'll probably have a revolution before we get there.

There is a reason the word "libertarian" means something totally different if you go anywhere else in the world and talk to anyone who isn't a clueless white male American who stopped reading books after he finished Atlas Shrugged in 9th grade.

I believe, not only humans but animals also have compassion...in the debate of selfishness vs altruism, compassion should stem from the altruistic urges of humans..

But the question is what is the majority mindset of humans in any society? is it selfishness or altruism?..if its selfishness, then only  libertarianism can save the society right?

[cuddaloreappu]

I too have found myself changing. My attitude towards world, towards people have changed after doing lot of bitcoin transactions. Money spoils life sometimes

Dont say it spoils..say you are liberated...

[foggyb]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:

Those slums are what happens when capitalism (limited government, low taxation, entrepreneurship, and free markets) is repressed, big corporate lobbyists control the politicians, and government programs fail (inevitably).

If we're wired for compassion, why do we kill each other non-stop for the last 3000 years of recorded history?

[jonald_fyookball]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. 

Socialism is what I call toll-booth compassion.  IOW, "I'm going to help others with YOUR money.  Now pay up."

[Beliathon]

But the question is what is the majority mindset of humans in any society? is it selfishness or altruism?

That depends on their culture. In a neo-feudal society which is governed primarily by violence and only secondly by reason, the majority mindset of people tends to be fearful and selfish.
In some - perhaps distant - future society which is governed solely by reason, the majority mindset will tend toward compassion, as that is the hidden truth of human nature.

If we're wired for compassion, why do we kill each other non-stop for the last 3000 years of recorded history?

There are some things you should probably know about human violence. Mainly, it's been steadily decreasing as we socially evolve toward our truest, most natural compassionate selves.

Related: http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/science/researchers-trace-empathy-s-roots-to-infancy.html

[cuddaloreappu]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:

Those slums are what happens when capitalism (limited government, low taxation, entrepreneurship, and free markets) is repressed, big corporate lobbyists control the politicians, and government programs fail (inevitably).

If we're wired for compassion, why do we kill each other non-stop for the last 3000 years of recorded history?

lol..

[cuddaloreappu]

well I've always been libertarian, why the heck were you a socialist?!

Because compassion is the noblest and highest form of wisdom. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Homo Sapiens are neuro-biologically wired for compassion.

Related: http://www.democracyjournal.org/16/6740.php?page=all


This is Sao Paulo, Brazil. It's a little glimpse of your "Libertarian Utopia" (read: wage-slave dystopia), capitalists:

Those slums are what happens when capitalism (limited government, low taxation, entrepreneurship, and free markets) is repressed, big corporate lobbyists control the politicians, and government programs fail (inevitably).

If we're wired for compassion, why do we kill each other non-stop for the last 3000 years of recorded history?

lol..

what about the 2 million pre historic time..humanimals...lot may be cannibals too

[cuddaloreappu]

A theme for those who feel liberated

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cl57NQ6GcF8

[Wealthy]

Nothing major changed since I started using Bitcoins, its more of a personal view than general trend..

I am same as before..

[MadAlpha]

The problem with political ideologies, and that includes socialism and libertarianism, is that they base their arguments on ill-defined and messy terms and then at the end they pop out suspiciously clean and elegant conclusions.

This is precisely the problem, thank you for defining it.

The human language is incapable of capturing the complexities of the real world.

This is only the case as long as words have no definition or meaning. Until then no intellectual discussion is possible. When words have a clearly defined meaning, then arguments based on logic and reason become possible.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor.

For the sake of argument, I am going to call this "socialism", as you did. Some may disagree on what "socialism" means, but lets just agree on what the above sentence means.

Then there are people who support an ideology which does not share this view of "moral obligation". I called them "libertarians" in order to make a distinction between the two groups. Now people will say that's not what "libertarian" means. Fine. Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, so I will use that in place of Libertarianism, if that helps.

[cuddaloreappu]

The problem with political ideologies, and that includes socialism and libertarianism, is that they base their arguments on ill-defined and messy terms and then at the end they pop out suspiciously clean and elegant conclusions.

This is precisely the problem, thank you for defining it.

The human language is incapable of capturing the complexities of the real world.

This is only the case as long as words have no definition or meaning. Until then no intellectual discussion is possible. When words have a clearly defined meaning, then arguments based on logic and reason become possible.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor.

For the sake of argument, I am going to call this "socialism", as you did. Some may disagree on what "socialism" means, but lets just agree on what the above sentence means.

Then there are people who support an ideology which does not share this view of "moral obligation". I called them "libertarians" in order to make a distinction between the two groups. Now people will say that's not what "libertarian" means. Fine. Ayn Rand called her philosophy Objectivism, so I will use that in place of Libertarianism, if that helps.

can you tell me the differences between libertarianism and objectivism