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

[corebob]

I would say I have had a similar experience. I wasn't exactly a socialist, but probably close to a social-democrat.
The Bitcoin community have definitely radicalized me, or woken me up if you will. I'm not sure if I should call myself a libertarian or a anarcho-capitalist.
I guess it doesn't matter much what the f*** I call myself, which is one of the sweeter aspects of it.

[1713552691]

1713552691

[1713552691]

1713552691

[1713552691]

1713552691

[JimminyCricket]

see how your ideology rewards you... you are given golden opportunities cheap(early btc adoption) for being a libertarian.. but what would a socialist get?... maybe free food coupons.

Socialism is very rewarding if you are in on the ground floor and have control of the power used to keep the people in line. Then you become a master of people and can get all sorts of perks that you will not allow your followers to have.

I've studied the Left for many years now, looking at their various policies and trying to make sense of them. There seems no logical cohesion, no central principles involved. Environmentalism, gay rights, internationalism, the destruction of the family, centralized control of production, centralized control of distribution, Political Correctness, the capture of the Media, the capture of Academia, anti-religion, feminist, as well as the jaw-dropping hypocrisy of Leftists when comparing their personal lives to their political opinions. Its a very puzzling patchwork of policies. Ultimately, I decided the following:

1. The Left supports a variety of voting blocks (gays, ethnic minorities, trade unions, etc etc etc), in order to gather together these disparate groups and form a political majority with them. There is no particular reason for Leftists to support any particular policy UNLESS it provides them with a committed loyal voting group. The ONLY principle which guides them is which route is most effective at SEIZING POWER.

2. This concept (of the Left as just a political power "vacuum machine") is extremely useful. It means that the Left is simply a gigantic conspiracy to usurp society (and in so doing propels the Party leadership into the top ranks of society). All the talk about equality, fairness, looking after the weak, altruism, etc is complete BS, a mask to hide the real agenda.

3. Looking back through history, the Left is soaked in the blood of its victims. Lenin was a truly sinister murderous conspirator - Stalin was just following Lenin's path when he murdered millions. Pol pot, Khymer Rouge, Shining Path, Mao, Hitler, Guevara, all of these socialist bastards have caused utter chaos and bloodshed amongst the masses they pretend to care for. Anyone today who is still a socialist is either a fool or a very dangerous, calculating monster. (ps And yes, Hitler was indeed a socialist in case you were wondering. He led the National Socialist Party).

[cuddaloreappu]

Thanks for your advice, as you said I am going to read more, think more , so I  bought these from amazon just now

Err... yeah...  those books are great if you're a teenager first learning about philosophy. Might I suggest you branch out from reading only Rand's work like holy texts? Here are some humble reading recommendations:

thanks for the suggestions! its gonna take a long time reading all of these!

[Beliathon]

Libertarianism only makes sense if you either can support yourself now or you believe you will be able to without today's government regulations.  

Your "ability to support yourself" is an illusion. Unless you own a farm, grow your own food, AND supply your own electricity, there are thousands of human beings supporting your survival. Without their servitude, you would die of exposure and/or starvation.

Many of those humans work for shit pay in places like Mexico, China, and Bangladesh. This is because they're lower on the socio-economic hierarchy than you, which is mostly because they were unfortunately born and live in the wrong nation.
The existence and functioning of this hierarchy depends wholly on continuous systematic violence. Without that violence, they stop sending you the food, electricity, or clothes you consume. You might still be able to acquire those goods and services without the hegemony, but it would cost you 5-10x what you are paying now.

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

[shawshankinmate37927]

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with violence, at least not the initiation of violence.

[cuddaloreappu]

Libertarianism only makes sense if you either can support yourself now or you believe you will be able to without today's government regulations.  

Your "ability to support yourself" is an illusion. Unless you own a farm, grow your own food, AND supply your own electricity, there are thousands of human beings supporting your survival. Without their servitude, you would die of exposure and/or starvation.

Many of those humans work for shit pay in places like Mexico, China, and Bangladesh. This is because they're lower on the socio-economic hierarchy than you, which is mostly because they were unfortunately born and live in the wrong nation.
The existence and functioning of this hierarchy depends wholly on continuous systematic violence. Without that violence, they stop sending you the food, electricity, or clothes you consume. You might still be able to acquire those goods and services without the hegemony, but it would cost you 5-10x what you are paying now.

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "NATURE".

[corebob]

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with violence, at least not the initiation of violence.

Capitalism doesn't work, thats why he used quotations. Nothing that gets centralized over time does. What we have now can best be described as a crony plotocracy.
If you want proof, take a close look at the BitLicense

[shawshankinmate37927]

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with violence, at least not the initiation of violence.

Capitalism doesn't work, thats why he used quotations. Nothing that gets centralized over time does. What we have now can best be described as a crony plotocracy.
If you want proof, take a close look at the BitLicense

Free market capitalism most certainly does work.  We'll have a much better world when the crony plutocracy is replaced with capitalism.

[corebob]

This system of carefully organized hierarchy-based violence, we call "capitalism".

Free market capitalism has nothing to do with violence, at least not the initiation of violence.

Capitalism doesn't work, thats why he used quotations. Nothing that gets centralized over time does. What we have now can best be described as a crony plotocracy.
If you want proof, take a close look at the BitLicense

Free market capitalism most certainly does work.  We'll have a much better world when the crony plutocracy is replaced with capitalism.

I don't like the word capitalism, it reminds me of my grandfathers smelly underpants, but the free market will work if Bitcoin stays decentralized.

[shawshankinmate37927]

I don't like the word capitalism, it reminds me of my grandfathers smelly underpants, but the free market will work if Bitcoin stays decentralized.

There are people out there that that call themselves capitalists and give capitalism a bad name.  Just like there are people that call themselves Christians or Muslims and give Christianity or Islam a bad name.  Those who believe in using the violence and power of the state to protect or establish a monopoly are not capitalists, despite what they may call themselves.

[Bitmore]

I don't like the word capitalism, it reminds me of my grandfathers smelly underpants, but the free market will work if Bitcoin stays decentralized.

There are people out there that that call themselves capitalists and give capitalism a bad name.  Just like there are people that call themselves Christians or Muslims and give Christianity or Islam a bad name.  Those who believe in using the violence and power of the state to protect or establish a monopoly are not capitalists, despite what they may call themselves.

The term "capitalist" is actually a term created by Karl Marx in describing and demonizing the free market.

An absolute free society, anarchism, can only work in heaven;   It requires absolute morality for self interest to work without outside force to achieve justice for all.  That outside force in a government is the level or scale of law required, preferable a minimum because nobody wants to live in a police state.  That force materializes in the power of government over individuals.  Unfortunately all power is corrupting to those who wield it.

We live today in a system that has degenerated into "crony capitalism".   Big government and big business conspire against their enemies in business and politics within our system, using violence against the individual, while violence used by a state is only justifiable when used to protect the individual's rights.

Perhaps Bitcoin will return us, and the world, to a more capitalist/free market reality.

[shawshankinmate37927]

The term "capitalist" is actually a term created by Karl Marx in describing and demonizing the free market.

Interesting, I've learned something new today.  It's good to know that I believe in something that Karl Marx despised.

An absolute free society, anarchism, can only work in heaven;   It requires absolute morality for self interest to work without outside force to achieve justice for all.  That outside force in a government is the level or scale of law required, preferable a minimum because nobody wants to live in a police state.  That force materializes in the power of government over individuals.  Unfortunately all power is corrupting to those who wield it.

We live today in a system that has degenerated into "crony capitalism".   Big government and big business conspire against their enemies in business and politics within our system, using violence against the individual, while violence used by a state is only justifiable when used to protect the individual's rights.

Perhaps Bitcoin will return us, and the world, to a more capitalist/free market reality.

Yeah, I don't think a society with no government is possible.  That's why I'm a minarchist and not an anarchist.

[hayek]

Bitcoin, or just wealth or promise of it you got due to bitcoin?
In a free (libertarian) society, poor and stupid and lazy, or really unfortunate (ie. quadriplegics) people literally starve to death. Sufficient charity to alleviate that for everyone can't exist.  

I'm sorry but this is academically and intellectually false. It's not a sin to be economically illiterate but spreading misinformation helps no one.

So if you think you're in that group (either because you really are, or you just have heavy depression) supporting socialism is the only logical choice.  

Well that's a profound jump you've just made. "According to my own rhetoric you should listen to what I say"

Libertarianism only makes sense if you either can support yourself now or you believe you will be able to without today's government regulations.  

I beg your pardon but the current systems exacerbate the problem. Since you are fond of hypotheticals, in a libertarian society you could have exactly the same things the US has now just by virtue of people choosing to pay the exact same people to do the exact same things - but save the bureaucratic overhead. How would the poor starve if less of their money is being taken from them if they already survive now and will have more money coming in? Now that taxes, tariffs and all other manner of BS that inflate prices are gone the floodgates of cheap goods will be open.

Furthermore, the majority of "perks" taxpayers enjoy come from the State level in the US. Federal taxes fun entitlement programs for the old and war. If those entitlement programs truly are solvent then the greedy capitalists would have no problem running a business off the same model. The increased competition would benefit the elderly - but they already paid in right, this is just their money coming back to them now.

Truly, the worst thing that could come out of a libertarian society would be ending up right back where we are now.

[allthingsluxury]

Most logical people make the switch 

[cuddaloreappu]

Most logical people make the switch 

well said!

[Beliathon]

Truly, the worst thing that could come out of a libertarian society would be ending up right back where we are now.

Not even close. Capitalism without government to rein it in would quickly lead to a nightmarish dystopia where corporations rule hordes of slaves with an iron fist. There would be mass sex-slavery, rampant and never-ending war & murder for profit, and starvation wouldn't even be considered a problem. In a word, fascism.

Basically, this:

Most logical people make the switch  

well said!

[cuddaloreappu]

98% humans are selfish individuals.. the best system is the one that rewards the selfish desires  of the individual...

Do yourself and the internet a favor: read more, learn more, think more, and talk less.

Just watched the RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilization you referred!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

A nice video where author describes the humans are basically empathetic species!

But what difference does this make! this world is also filled with ISIS like people who show no empathy!

then the argument would be ISIS just represents less than 1 percent of the population and the rest of them are empathetic individuals!

and when we bring statistics into argument it goes back again to the same story of SELFISHNESS VS ALTRUISM!

the real solution to this argument would be to cite  scientific studies which found out if majority of humans are selfish individuals or altruistic!

[rugrats]

Respectfully, but isn't this is just more labels to reconcile the gap between limited government and total anarchy, and an attempt to pigeonhole people like Ron Paul?

...

Would a more accurate description of Paul's ideology be something like constitutionalist-right wing-conservative-deontological libertarian-Christian fundamentalist-liberal?
Or should we just agree that this does a complete disservice to Paul's complex ideology?

I have no problem with describing Ron Paul as a libertarian. If you have a complex ideology fine, what I don't like is when people join a discussion and say: "I'm not part of any ideology I have my own views".
Yes you have your own views but that doesn't make them unique. They are still part of ideology, it doesn't matter how complex it is.

I have yet to see a opinion or a political view in this thread, that we cannot place in a ideology.

Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian.
Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)?

Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.

The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate.
Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties.
You should not let yourself be boxed by labels.
The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team.

How would you reconcile this theory in comparing the pro-market, limited government American right wing and Europe's populist, nationalist and pro social welfare right wing?
It can't work both ways, right?

The difference is still the tradition of social democracy in Europe. The right wing in Europe wants to keep the welfare state but they also want lower taxes.
It would be political suicide for any party in Europe to try to end the welfare state.

You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude.
The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum.
If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies?

Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States?
Lincoln's Homestead Act. Little House on the Prairie, anyone?

The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today.

And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory.

Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers.

[rugrats]

98% humans are selfish individuals.. the best system is the one that rewards the selfish desires  of the individual...

Do yourself and the internet a favor: read more, learn more, think more, and talk less.

Just watched the RSA Animate - The Empathic Civilization you referred!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7AWnfFRc7g

A nice video where author describes the humans are basically empathetic species!

But what difference does this make! this world is also filled with ISIS like people who show no empathy!

then the argument would be ISIS just represents less than 1 percent of the population and the rest of them are empathetic individuals!

and when we bring statistics into argument it goes back again to the same story of SELFISHNESS VS ALTRUISM!

the real solution to this argument would be to cite  scientific studies which found out if majority of humans are selfish individuals or altruistic!

Does it really matter?
Shouldn't we, as individuals and civilizations as a whole, aspire to be the best that we can be?
The Vedic texts, the mighty Greek philosophers, the Magna Carta, the Leviathan, The Two Treatises of Government, The Age of Enlightenment - all these are the byproducts of humanity's attempt for material and spiritual advancement.

Our values and morality have grown throughout the ages since the dawn of history. Imagine, less than a century ago women still can't vote in the United States. Less than two centuries ago, the law accepts that some humans are inferior to others. Less than four centuries ago, the Church gave their blessing for the genocide of non-caucasoids. Less than six centuries ago, the modern concept of courtship and love still hadn't emerged.

The right thing is never the easiest to do. If it was, most of us here won't be gambling, smoking and womanizing our lives away.

[forevernoob]

Huh. We're starting to go in circles now. By your own definition, Paul isn't a libertarian.
Remember what you wrote a few days ago (we've already covered Paul's position on taxes, in case you forget)?

Do you want limited taxation? Then you are a social liberal. Do you want no taxation at all? Then you are a libertarian.

The portion of my post which you've snipped off contained a handful of other examples that proves labeling people with specific ideologies is inaccurate.
Once again, labeling is for census takers and political parties.
You should not let yourself be boxed by labels.
The world isn't conveniently divided between neatly labeled groups of people; we're not players for a sports team.

I meant no disrespect in snipping off your post, it was so much information that it would bloat my post.
I still think we got your message. (no need to quote a list of "4 libertarians that aren't really libertarians")

"Limited taxation" have different meanings obviously, Ron Paul wants less taxation than Obama.
And Obama wants limited taxes. (if you compare it to European standards)

I realize that my example was very bad, I apologize for that.

I never said anything about limiting yourselves to one label. I'm just against people calling themselves "apolitical".
And the usual "I am better than everyone else because I don't belong to any ideology"

You can't pin everything on the 'social democracy' bogeyman, dude.
The definition of left and right in U.S. and Europe is different - it's as simple as that. They inhabit different areas of the political spectrum.
If you are going to peg some historical or traditional aspect of social democracy to the issue (which still doesn't change their differences, btw), then what about the U.S' own socialist policies?

Do you realize that the greatest ever economic development policy in the history of the United States is also the most socialist in the history of the United States?
Lincoln's Homestead Act. Little House on the Prairie, anyone?

The federal government offered citizens (and even advertised in far flung regions of Europe) free land and zero interest loans for farming tools, seeds and fertilizers, payable after harvest. It become the single most powerful source of economic growth in the history of the United States. And yet, the descendants of the main beneficiaries of the Act today are among the most vociferous critics of socialism. Going by your theory, the American right wing should look a whole lotta different today.

And to make things more interesting, another of Lincoln's influential policy, the Civil War Pension program, tied the military to the Republicans for almost a century. And yet, in the last presidential election, Paul had the lion's share of support from military personnel. Another damper on your theory.

Look, at this stage, I know my words won''t change your mind. But keep an open mind, and don't create unnecessary internal barriers.

We can discuss European and American politics for years and still not understand it completely. Europe and America is very different let's just leave it at that.

I have a open mind, and I don't have any internal barriers. I just don't like people saying they don't follow any ideology at all.