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

[Beliathon]

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?

Nothing, as long as you won't send men to do violence against me when I share your ebook on the pirate bay for free. Agreed?

Profit is a filthy word, wherever there is profit there is also deficit. Wherever there is profit, there is exploitation, there is pollution, there is violence.

[forevernoob]

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.

I would argue that's a play of words. Anarchy literally means "no rulers". It's just a word it doesn't say anything about property rights.
In the same sense leftist complain about "libertarianism" being misused I would argue that "anarchism" is misused.

[Beliathon]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers". It's just a word it doesn't say anything about property rights.

Read about Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the first self-described "anarchist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

[MadAlpha]

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.

Ok, so you don't believe in the right to own property, I think this is the most fundamental difference between us.

So maybe a piece of land was originally taken by force in a war or the like, I fail to see the link how the guilt of those crimes transfer over to the current owner of the land? The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

If the owner builds a house on this piece of land, without using any outside help, and pays all the materials and tools by himself, you really think he doesn't own that house?

[jonald_fyookball]

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?

Nothing, as long as you won't send men to do violence against me when I share your ebook on the pirate bay for free. Agreed?

thats how it works now.  thankfully, many people are willing to pay for what their perceive as good value and are not greedy bottom feeders , always trying to get everything for free on pirate bay , that others have worked hard to create.

[Beliathon]

I fail to see the link how the guilt of those crimes transfer over to the current owner of the land?

You also fail to see that this sort of violence for control of property is happening all over the world, right now as we speak.

The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

So from this is it safe to assume you are for abolishing all forms of inheritance (property and wealth) and redistributing all those resources equally whenever someone dies?

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?

Nothing, as long as you won't send men to do violence against me when I share your ebook on the pirate bay for free. Agreed?

thats how it works now.

Only because we invented our way (via the torrent) out of the deathgrip of copyright law. Less than a decade ago the copyright thugs were storming homes and arresting people for having pirated music on their hard drives. Remember that?

I assure you all the victims of that hideous violence-for-greed do.

[forevernoob]

Anarchy literally means "no rulers". It's just a word it doesn't say anything about property rights.

Read about Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the first self-described "anarchist". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!

So he has monopoly on a word? Hmm I wonder how that works is it like patents or how would one take ownership of a word?

[MadAlpha]

The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

So from this is it safe to assume you are for abolishing all forms of inheritance (property and wealth) and redistributing all those resources equally whenever someone dies?

No, don't assume that. Why do you ask that? It was just an example.

[jonald_fyookball]

The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

So from this is it safe to assume you are for abolishing all forms of inheritance (property and wealth) and redistributing all those resources equally whenever someone dies?

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?

Nothing, as long as you won't send men to do violence against me when I share your ebook on the pirate bay for free. Agreed?

thats how it works now.

Only because we invented our way (via the torrent) out of the deathgrip of copyright law. Less than a decade ago the copyright thugs were storming homes and arresting people for having pirated music on their hard drives. Remember that?

I assure you all the victims of that hideous violence-for-greed do.

to me this copyright issue is tangential. 

the main point is that on the internet, people are free to transact as they wish.
you said you don't have a problem with that.  Many people would call that capitalism.

[Beliathon]

to me this copyright issue is tangential.

I'd bet it's not so tangential to the people who had jackbooted thugs storm their house because they downloaded a dozen or two songs from Napster in the early 2000s.

I'd bet it's also not so tangential to the political prisoners rotting in jail for the "crime" of piracy:

No, don't assume that. Why do you ask that? It was just an example.

Your statement:

The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

...carries with it the implication that all current owners of property paid for it, but in fact many owners of property (and wealth) inherited. A good deal of modern wealth in the South can be traced directly back to slavery.

So you must forfeit your entire argument unless you agree that all forms of inheritance should be abolished as unethical.

[MadAlpha]

No, don't assume that. Why do you ask that? It was just an example.

Your statement:

The current owner, who has purchased the land from the previous owner, not taken it by force.

...carries with it the implication that all current owners of property paid for it, but in fact many owners of property (and wealth) inherited them. A good deal of modern wealth in the South can be traced back to slavery.

So you must forfeit your entire argument unless you agree that all forms of inheritance should be abolished as unethical.

No, I don't imply anything about all current owners of property. I am sure many were inherited and taken by force. The example was about one single case, in which the property was bought.

[Beliathon]

No, I don't imply anything about all current owners of property. I am sure many were inherited and taken by force. The example was about one single case, in which the property was bought.

You did actually, but I will forgive the mistake since clearly your mastery over the English language is somewhat lackluster.

Anyway, I bet you would change your tune if you were renting an apartment in some building, and some rich guy came along and bought your building, and served you an eviction notice the next month because he wants to bulldoze your slum and rebuild luxury condos which you cannot afford.

Shout out to any New Yorkers out there...

[jonald_fyookball]

I'd bet it's not so tangential to the people who had jackbooted thugs storm their house because they downloaded a dozen or two songs from Napster in the early 2000s.
 

Well, I think the punishment should fit the crime.  I do believe in copyright laws in general.
We can agree to disagree on that.

But why not celebrate on our agreement of "free trade on the Internet".
Maybe you want to call that anarachism and I want to call it capitalism,
so labels aside, at least we are getting somewhere, don't you think?

 

[MadAlpha]

You did actually, but I will forgive the mistake since clearly your mastery over the English language is somewhat lackluster.

Thank you for forgiving that, English is indeed not my native language.

The difference in our position is clear, I support property rights and you do not. So I think we can "agree to disagree", since this is probably not going anywhere.

I guess it goes without saying that you do not think people have a right to own bitcoins either?

[Beliathon]

I guess it goes without saying that you do not think people have a right to own bitcoins either?

On the blockchain, the concept of "ownership" does not apply.

Think of the blockchain as a huge series of glass safety deposit boxes, transparent but impenetrable. Anyone on the planet can go visit these boxes, see what's inside, and even make a deposit to any box (blockchain address) they choose.

However, the glass itself is invulnerable to attack. You either have the keys to a particular box (address) or you don't. The vast majority of boxes (addresses) has only one or two sets of keys, privately held.

But that may change, in time... in fact I predict it will as we eventually transition to a post-capitalism society.

[cynicSOB]

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

except for when you have more profits/property than you deserve. In that case, to deny them is fair, humane, and the right thing to do.
And this is where extreme libertarians are wrong. Even John Locke, the great supporter of private property, stated that you should be allowed to build a fortune as long as there is abundance and enough for others.

[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. 

except for when you have more profits/property than you deserve. In that case, to deny them is fair, humane, and the right thing to do.
And this is where extreme libertarians are wrong. Even John Locke, the great supporter of private property, stated that you should be allowed to build a fortune as long as there is abundance and enough for others.

Who's to say how much a man deserves?  You can easily point to poor areas of the world and say "these people don't have enough".

[cynicSOB]

Who's to say how much a man deserves?  You can easily point to poor areas of the world and say "these people don't have enough".

the majority?
I don't know, I'm a cynic son of a b*tch, I'm not here to give solutions, I'm here to tell you why you are wrong
my point is that there should be a limit, and heavy taxation and redistribution is not theft

[jonald_fyookball]

heavy taxation and redistribution is not theft

It is theft to me.

Call it what you want -- it involves threats backed by guns and jails and
taking away what someone earned on their own to give it to someone else.

This is socialism... this is what the OP said he changed from.

And why should there be an arbitrary limit if you truly earned your wealth
by providing value to others?

[commandrix]

How much profit does a person really deserve? If he's providing a service that people need or want in a way that's honest, let him do it without harping at him about what he "deserves" because profit is simply the payoff for bringing supply to where the demand is. And maybe eventually his conscience will cause him to share what he's earned with people who maybe aren't as lucky as he is.