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

[cynicSOB]

wtf? how did bitcoin did this?
economic libertarianism leads to concentration of wealth, monopolization.
monopolization = bad
I'm ok with libertarianism, except economic liberalism

I still don't understand why, in the US, libertarianism including economic libertarianism is associated with "left winged" or "progressist" while in the rest of the world libertarianism and economic liberalism are clearly separated....

[Beliathon]

please don't use USA as synonymous with real capitalism, it certainly isn't

Oh right, "real" capitalism. The kind that has never existed in reality and never will, right? The Ayn Randian utopian fantasy capitalism that exists only in your imagination? "Real" indeed...

Imagine if I said to you, "please don't use GM as an example of a REAL car company, it certainly isn't."

Or how about, "please don't use New York as an example of a REAL city, it certainly isn't."?

How seriously would you take my argument?

I still don't understand why, in the US, libertarianism including economic libertarianism is associated with "left winged" or "progressist" while in the rest of the world libertarianism and economic liberalism are clearly separated....

We dumb down everything here in the US of A, it's why our population is so easy to manipulate. After all, our owners learned from the master...

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
-Adolf Hitler

Want to learn more? Read this book. No, it wasn't written by Ayn Rand, but it's still a good read, I promise... Wait, don't go...

What about judging a society on the basis of how it treats its best members?

[practicaldreamer]

   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.

Yes - of course. You know that - and so do I   [BTW monopoly is the inevitable outcome of the free market - in the absence of, that is, (and I bare darely say it on this forum) regulation]

But the 1% are in the business of maintaining their exploitative domination, privilege and power.

What they gonna do - tell the people (who are, after all, the spanner in the works in all of this) that they are worthless shites and that is why they have fuck all, but that they themselves have a massive amount of wealth on account of being virtuous, handsome, hardworking and of a genius IQ level ?  It won't wash will it ? There'd be blood on the streets of London this weekend if they were to tell it like (they believe) it is.
   Having said that, they have tried (and do try) such blatant arguments going all the way back to the Divine Right argument - and those very same arguments are, even today, sometimes only thinly disguised.

But if you were a level headed million/billionaire looking to the long game you'd be much better pushing a political philosophy built around that nebulous phrase "freedom" (and the vagueness of the concept works well here) and dressing it up, via less state intervention/taxation and the sanctity of the "rights" of the individual, into a pseudo/quasi revolutionary battle cry named "Libertarianism".
    (see  "The Protestant Work Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" - libertarianism is a new name for something very old (and tired)). Religion used to be the philosophical backdrop -  and,in a way, it still is, only we don't call it religion anymore.

 This article makes an interesting read about the British "Establishment".

"The interests of those who dominate British society are disparate; indeed, they often conflict with one another. The establishment includes politicians who make laws; media barons who set the terms of debate; businesses and financiers who run the economy; police forces that enforce a law that is rigged in favour of the powerful. The establishment is where these interests and worlds intersect, either consciously or unconsciously. It is unified by a common mentality, which holds that those at the top deserve their power and their ever-growing fortunes, and which might be summed up by the advertising slogan "Because I'm worth it". This is the mentality that has driven politicians to pilfer expenses, businesses to avoid tax, and City bankers to demand ever greater bonuses while plunging the world into economic disaster. All of these things are facilitated – even encouraged – by laws that are geared to cracking down on the smallest of misdemeanours committed by those at the bottom of the pecking order – for example, benefit fraud"

Spot on Owen - I think there must be some of the British Establishment frequenting this forum TBH  

[MadAlpha]

...

I have made somewhat clear what system I support. Why don't you tell us what kind of system you support? Because through all of this, that has not become fully clear, and you seem to avoid the subject.

And, why are you in a Bitcoin forum? Judging by what you are saying, Bitcoin does not share your values (e.g. wealth is concentrated in the hands of the few)?

And finally, what non-coercive methods are you going to use to take other people's bitcoin and redistribute it?

[Welsh]

I've always believed that socialism or libertarianism is the way to go. I believe both have great moral concepts and I would settle for any one of those over the current chaos we are experiencing. I wouldn't say that my views/beliefs have changed since using Bitcoin, but they certainly have evolved and are convincing me day by day that it would work if given the chance. I wouldn't say I prefer socialism to libertarianism or the other way around, because they both have things I agree with and some things which I believe there's a better solution for. However, I think I've always swayed towards libertarianism the most and normally talk about it more with some of my friends. I'm sure in the next few years my views and opinions will evolve that much more, but nothing dramatic and I'll probably be claiming libertarianism is the way to go. It's a complex system and isn't such a easy thing as saying which one is the best, because honestly? I don't know at the present.

Congrats on your embrace of libertarianism!
It really is for the greater good.  

I like what you did there!

I can see why, and there are many types of socialism, if you study the origins of socialism and libertarianism you will learn they are closely related.

Anyway I don't think we should be absolutists about anything, these type of systems can co-exist, some are better for one thing, others are better for other things.

I think they are more closely related than people care to admit. They are extremely close to being the same thing with only a small margin which separates them.

Now that I stop and think about it I have changed from "favoring"(for lack of a better term), a more socialism type system  from more libertarian type system.  This hasn't been a recent change for me though and it didn't help instantly at all.  I think I'm still learning and transitioning everyday.  I've never really given much thought how much of a roll Bitcoin has played in the change over the years.

I think this thread actually made me realism how much I favor libertarianism over socialism, although I still believe they are both wonderful philosophies.

yea, bitcoin has had a big effect on my political views. i was raised in a republican mormon home, but as an adult quicly realized the whole system was jacked up... being here and reading various links and such over the last three years has really opened my eyes even more. i went from not caring to actively trying to change things.

course now it's more like "well little people can't really effect change much..." and i feel like i'm sitting on the sidelines watching the world crumble in ultra slow motion.

Being a Lord Of The Rings fan I've used the same argument when explaining to people who don't quite grasp the concept. I'm quite amused to see someone else also compared it to the whole point of the movie too.

[Beliathon]

I have made somewhat clear what system I support. Why don't you tell us what kind of system you support?

Here, watch this for a minute or two, it should clear things up nicely.

The new political system I would support would be DIFFERENT from capitalism in that it would NOT:

-Pillage and poison our planet
-Generate inequality
-Foster monopolies of power
-Foster exploitation or human trafficking
-Depend upon structural violence for its continued existence

These are all problems inherent to the profit motive. Capitalism is the crisis, you see?

[jonald_fyookball]

 if you study the origins of socialism and libertarianism you will learn they are closely related.

To me they are pretty much opposites.  

Libertarianism (or Capitalism) is a laissez-faire system based on free trade,
mostly free of government interference and regulation.

Socialism involves government sanctioned , force-backed distribution of wealth
and resources.

@Beliathon:  which country do you think most closely models your ideals?

[Beliathon]

@Beliathon:  which country do you think most closely models your ideals?

No country; the internet most closely mirrors my ideals

Libertarianism (or Capitalism) is a laissez-faire system based on free trade,
mostly free of government interference and regulation.

Socialism involves government sanctioned , force-backed distribution of wealth
and resources.

Why must you over-simplify every intellectual discussion?

It's not "libertarian vs socialist". It's a two dimensional grid, a spectrum of social and economic perspectives.



Here, take the test and see where you fall on the spectrum. I'm in the far bottom left corner.

[jonald_fyookball]

@Beliathon:  which country do you think most closely models your ideals?

No country; the internet most closely mirrors my ideals

"The Internet" most closely resembles a system of free trade,
laissez-faire system, free of government controls, do you agree?

[Beliathon]

"The Internet" most closely resembles a system of free trade,
laissez-faire system, free of government controls, do you agree?

Nope. The internet makes many aspects of capitalism obsolete, such as copyright law and the concept of digital "property". The internet, like Bitcoin, is anarchistic in nature.

[jonald_fyookball]

"The Internet" most closely resembles a system of free trade,
laissez-faire system, free of government controls, do you agree?

Nope. The internet makes many aspects of capitalism obsolete, such as copyright law and the concept of digital "property". The internet, like Bitcoin, is anarchistic in nature.

So you don't believe in free trade, you just want everything to be free, is that it?

[Beliathon]

So you don't believe in free trade, you just want everything to be free, is that it?

The Earth and all its bounties are the birthright of all living things. To set aside a portion for you and only you, that is the birth of theft - and murder too.

All property owned today can be traced back through history to one violent act or another.

By condoning the rights of property owners today, you retroactively condone every violent act that led to the property rights you are protecting.

You cannot on one hand protect property rights and on the other condemn violence. They are one in the same, you are contradicting yourself.

If you accept property rights than you accept violence. To arrest me for killing someone to gain their property for myself is hypocrisy of the highest order, do you see?

Capitalism IS violence. It always has been. Anyone who studies history can see it, clear as crystal.

[forevernoob]

It was essentially barter. Though if many more people choose to be in collectives rather than being on their own, individualists may find themselves in a worse negotiation position. Maybe it would be different today with all available technology now, or maybe you would have to accept the fact that in a true voluntary society not all people would think the way you do, and would choose to cooperate with others rather than being on their own.

Thank you for explaining how anarcho-socialism can be non-coercive.
But I cannot help but imagine that these collectives would disrupt after while. I think they are a bit like governments, they strive to control people.
The people might be a bit more free but from my viewpoint they are still being controlled by the majority in the collective.

Since individualists are allowed in this system you describe, they most certainly will have markets which will create more innovation than inside the collectives.
This will in turn lead to collectives being less attractive than outside alternatives.

They won't lack innovation but certain things can only be innovated where there is a market for it.
If society was like these collectives we wouldn't have things like Ferrari's, Nike sneakers and Las Vegas.

In today's political systems, there are mostly no legal forms that would enable such an enterprise.

In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.

Even though these are Minarchists you are referring to I will try to defend their views.
They didn't feel the need for police and other institutions was for oppressing workers. They wanted government to protect property rights and stop murderers and thieves etc.
Workers would have no issue with taking over the means of production if they do it in a peaceful way.
But it doesn't matter if it's Adolf Hitler running the factory you cannot kill the owner and take over the factory by force. That is immoral.

In an anarchistic sense, I would predict that all "companies" (or places of production) would have such a structure or similar. Why? The fact that most market-libertarians ignore is that every hierarchical (capitalistic) organization carries within it the seed for the state. As said upthread, historically, if workers felt exploited, they would go on strike, mutiny, and eventually take over the means of production. It was the state, guards, the police that eventually prevented that. That's why market-"libertarian" "heroes" like Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises were not anarchists, because they understood that. They essentially always proposed a Night-watchman state, which is nothing new, it didn't work then, it probably won't work now, it always lead to inequality and existential struggle of the largest part of the population, and thus was what true anarchists were against.

Very important observation, and you are totally correct. Anarchism is of course totally incompatible with capitalism.

"Capitalism has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom — Free Trade. In one word, for exploitation, veiled by religious and political illusions, it has substituted naked, shameless, direct, brutal exploitation."
-Slavoj Zizek, THE SPECTRE IS STILL ROAMING AROUND!

And this free trade (and freedom in general), is what you hold so evil?

You like to speak of "exploitation". I am well aware of how Karl Marx defined it. If an employer pays his worker 1000 dollars to build a product, and then sells it for 1100 dollars, making a profit of 100, he "exploited" the worker for that 100 dollars. Even if the worker is perfectly happy to do the job for 1000, and no other employer would even pay him that much.

Capitalism is about freedom above anything else. Everyone is free to find the best possible job they can, or even better, start their own company.

You say capitalism is incompatible with anarchism yet you say: Capitalism is freedom.
If we remove the state and let people trade freely isn't that Anarchy?

[MadAlpha]

The new political system I would support would be DIFFERENT from capitalism in that it would NOT:

-Pillage and poison our planet
-Generate inequality
-Foster monopolies of power
-Foster exploitation or human trafficking
-Depend upon structural violence for its continued existence

The problem is that these are all kind of generalized sentences which sound good, but how would this work in practice? How would these goals be achieved and enforced?

I'm in the far bottom left corner.

Ok now we are getting somewhere. I am obviously in the bottom right.

These words socialist and anarchist together seem strange, because to me they are opposites of each other (socialism = strong state, anarchism = no state). However I can see how this "non-coercive" redistribution of wealth would be located in the bottom left. But again, how would this be achieved in practice?

[Beliathon]

But again, how would this be achieved in practice?

If I could answer this question I'm sure I would have won a nobel peace prize by now, my friend.

You know, for decades computer scientists regarded the Byzantine General's problem as unsolvable. Then one day in 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto came along and solved it. And Bitcoin was born.

That is how things go, problems often seem unsolvable right up until the day they are solved. So it goes with political systems. I'm not some political genius who will solve all the world's problems with the stroke of a pen.

I'm just a young man with a knack for studying history, calling it like I see it. And the way I see it, capitalism is already finished. A dead thing walking.

[jonald_fyookball]

But again, how would this be achieved in practice?

If I could answer this question I'm sure I would have won a nobel peace prize by now, my friend.

You know, for decades computer scientists regarded the Byzantine General's problem as unsolvable. Then one day in 2009 Satoshi Nakamoto came along and solved it. And Bitcoin was born.

That is how things go, problems often seem unsolvable right up until the day they are solved. So it goes with political systems. I'm not some political genius who can solve the problems of the world, just a young man with a knack for studying history.

but you seem to have a problem with profits/property.  To me, persuing them is a basic right and to deny them is oppression. 

[forevernoob]

I still don't understand why, in the US, libertarianism including economic libertarianism is associated with "left winged" or "progressist" while in the rest of the world libertarianism and economic liberalism are clearly separated....

We dumb down everything here in the US of A, it's why our population is so easy to manipulate. After all, our owners learned from the master...

"By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise."
-Adolf Hitler

Want to learn more? Read this book. No, it wasn't written by Ayn Rand, but it's still a good read, I promise... Wait, don't go...

It seems that Beliathon is at it again spamming with misinformation...

It's called libertarianism in the US because liberalism was already taken by the left. It's original name is "liberalism" or "classical liberalism".
But these are just words they have different meanings all over the world.
You shouldn't be offended just because it exist different cultures all over the world.
It's like "football" and "American football".

BTW did you know there is a party in Denmark called "The radical left" which is in fact a Social Liberal party, that's pretty fucked up don't you think?

[Beliathon]

but you seem to have a problem with profits/property.  To me, persuing them is a basic right and to deny them is oppression.  

In my opinion, your right to pursue profit ends with poisoning your neighbor's water supply, landbase, or air.

It most certainly ends at exploiting your fellow human beings, robbing them of the fruits of their labor for your personal gain.

And if you follow the trends of social evolution, my view will prevail sooner or later. Otherwise we'd still have slavery.

[MadAlpha]

You say capitalism is incompatible with anarchism yet you say: Capitalism is freedom.
If we remove the state and let people trade freely isn't that Anarchy?

The question was answered in the same post that you asked the question in.

The answer was given by herzmeister whom you quoted. Capitalism = minimal government, anarchy = no government. In capitalism you have property rights, in anarchy you do not.

[jonald_fyookball]

but you seem to have a problem with profits/property.  To me, persuing them is a basic right and to deny them is oppression.  

In my opinion, your right to pursue profit ends with poisoning your neighbor's water supply, landbase, or air.

It most certainly ends at exploiting your fellow human beings, robbing them of the fruits of their labor for your personal gain.

And if you follow the trends of social evolution, my view will prevail sooner or later. Otherwise we'd still have slavery.

i never said that at all.  i just want to be able to say, write an ebook and sell it online.  whats wrong with that?