Bitcoin Forum
September 16, 2019, 01:27:51 PM *
News: If you like a topic and you see an orange "bump" link, click it. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 »
  Print  
Author Topic: bitcoin changing my ideology from socialism to libertarianism! What about you?  (Read 33463 times)
cuddaloreappu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 04:33:42 PM
 #561

Most logical people make the switch  Grin

well said!
1568640471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568640471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568640471
Reply with quote  #2

1568640471
Report to moderator
1568640471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568640471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568640471
Reply with quote  #2

1568640471
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1568640471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568640471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568640471
Reply with quote  #2

1568640471
Report to moderator
1568640471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568640471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568640471
Reply with quote  #2

1568640471
Report to moderator
1568640471
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1568640471

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1568640471
Reply with quote  #2

1568640471
Report to moderator
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2014, 04:38:40 PM
 #562

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  Grin
well said!

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
cuddaloreappu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 04:57:01 PM
 #563

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
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 08:38:25 PM
 #564

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.


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
                 ▀█▀                                   
            ██                   ▄██▄                 
                    ▄     ▄█▄   ▀██▀                 
                   ▀█▀    ▀█▀                          

▄█   ▄█  ▄█        ▄█████▄   ▀█▄     ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▄▄▄▄▄   ██▀   ▀██    ▀█▄  ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▀▀▀▀██  ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ████   
██   ██  ██   ██  ██▄   ▄█    ▄██▀▀██▄   
▀██████▀  ▀██████▀  ▀███████▀   ▄██▀   ▀██▄
Telegram
Facebook
ANN Thread
Youtube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Medium
Reddit
Github
rugrats
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 250


🤖UBEX.COM 🤖


View Profile
October 08, 2014, 08:56:19 PM
 #565

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.


.GLOBAL DECENTRALIZED ADVERTISING EXCHANGE.

Token sale: MAY 21

                                  ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
                                 █████    █████       
                        ▄██▄     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▄█▄    ▀██▀                           
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
         ▄     ▀█▀                        ▄█▄        
        ▀█▀                      ▄█▄     █████       
                        ▄██▄    █████     ▀█▀        
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀                  
                ▀█▀                                    
          ▄                      ▄█▄      ▄█▄        
         ▀█▀           ▄██▄    █████    █████       
   ██          ▄█▄    ▀██▀     ▀█▀      ▀█▀        
                ▀█▀                                    
           ▄                      ▄█▄     ▄█▄        
          ▀█▀            ▄██▄   █████   █████       
    ██            ▄█▄   ▀██▀    ▀█▀     ▀█▀        
             ▄    ▀█▀                                 
            ▀█▀                         ▄█▄           
       ██              ▄█▄   ▄██▄    █████          
                  ▄    ▀█▀   ▀██▀     ▀█▀           
                 ▀█▀                                   
            ██                   ▄██▄                 
                    ▄     ▄█▄   ▀██▀                 
                   ▀█▀    ▀█▀                          

▄█   ▄█  ▄█        ▄█████▄   ▀█▄     ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▄▄▄▄▄   ██▀   ▀██    ▀█▄  ▄█▀
██   ██  ██▀▀▀▀██  ██▀▀▀▀▀▀▀      ████   
██   ██  ██   ██  ██▄   ▄█    ▄██▀▀██▄   
▀██████▀  ▀██████▀  ▀███████▀   ▄██▀   ▀██▄
Telegram
Facebook
ANN Thread
Youtube
LinkedIn
Twitter
Medium
Reddit
Github
forevernoob
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 681
Merit: 500



View Profile
October 08, 2014, 10:17:07 PM
 #566


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.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 08, 2014, 11:20:23 PM
Last edit: October 09, 2014, 02:36:47 AM by Beliathon
 #567

the real solution to this argument would be to cite  scientific studies which found out if majority of humans are selfish individuals or altruistic!
"Despite the mounting research evidence that humans are wired for empathy and often express their empathic regard by engaging in altruistic activity, the naysayers cling to the defense that people act that way because they have learned, through past experience and conditioning, that helping another person mutes their own empathic distress and provides them a sense of relief and, on occasion, even pleasure, because they have been morally accountable. Hoffman points out that just because one feels better because he or she was able to help another in distress doesn't mean that it is the sole or even a major reason for being altruistic. The pleasure might be an unexpected by-product, but not a prime motivating factor, for engaging in altrustic behavior in the first place." [refer to study 4 for elaboration]
-Jeremy Rifkin, The Empathic Civilization

Here's 5 studies and a TED talk for you. Four of the studies are for Homo Sapiens, one is for Capuchin monkeys.

Study 1:
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/11641621/ns/health-childrens_health/t/roots-altruism-show-babies-helping-hands/
Psychology researcher Felix Warneken, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Enthropology, published the results of a study of toddlers exhibiting altruistic behavior far earlier than previously expected, demonstrating the biological nature of human altruism. The following video will illustrate what happened:

Study 2:
http://news.yale.edu/2007/11/21/babies-prefer-good-samaritans

Study 3:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/28/science/researchers-trace-empathy-s-roots-to-infancy.html

Study 4:
http://onthehuman.org/2009/10/empathic-concern-and-altruism-in-humans/

Study 5:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKhAd0Tyny0

TED Talk - Frans de Waal: Moral behavior in animals:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJxRqTs5nk

This world is also filled with ISIS like people who show no empathy!
Not so! ISIS members do have empathy, but only for a very limited sphere of family/comrades. For the rest of humanity, they show little to no empathy. This of course is illogical, incestuous madness, like something transported from the dark ages. Thanks religion, for dragging shitty bronze-age ethics into the 21st century!

If you trace back through history, there has always been empathy for tribe-mates, or family / blood-kin. Through social evolution, reason compels us to expand our sphere of empathy wider and wider. Today, empathy is commonly extended to all fellow citizens of one's nation. Not so long ago this would've been a radical idea.
The logical conclusion of this trend is that eventually, all human beings will see themselves as citizens not of a nation, but of the world. We will begin to see all our fellow humans beings as kin, who deserve our love and compassion just as much as our own sons and daughters.

Shouldn't we, as individuals and civilizations as a whole, aspire to be the best that we can be?
Yes, exactly, of course we should. Well said my friend.

“Nationalism is our form of incest, is our idolatry, is our insanity.
Patriotism is its cult... Just as love for one individual which excludes the love for others is not love,
love for one's country which is not part of one's love for humanity is not love, but idolatrous worship.”
-Erich Fromm, The Sane Society


Yours in compassion and solidarity,

World Citizen Beliathon




Your move, capitalists and sociopaths (insofar as there is any meaningful practical difference).

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 12:53:53 AM
 #568

sick cool post beliathon
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2014, 01:39:50 AM
 #569

sick cool post beliathon
Myth and falsehood are only worms, burrowing inside the great tree of truth. They are mortal things, while the tree is eternal, and so they are doomed to lose the war for the consciousness of humanity.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1043


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 04:28:19 AM
 #570


Seeing Socialism (or Collectivism) up close and personal in a recent encounter with the EPA has changed my views and willingness to call myself a Socialist even in jest.  I realize now that Socialism is unlikely to ever come about without being intertwined and fertilized with fascism (merger of state and corporate power.)

I believe that 'transfer of wealth' is the only workable way to have a steady-state society which is worth living in.  The reason why is that most people are hopeless losers and lack the potential to produce enough value to fund a reasonable life while a minority can do so with ease.  At least in our technical societies of these days...hunter/gatherer societies (which we evolved to exist in) did not produce the same dynamics.  It is this believe in the necessity of transfer of wealth that was the main reason I called myself a Socialist.

Many, if not most of my views mirror those ascribed to Libertarians (though not monopolized by them in spite of what they believe.)  I never did care for the dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest malice that I see in that movement even though I believe I could thrive in such an environment personally if I choose to do so.

At this point I feel that a cold hard world where one is free to exploit one's peers on an individual basis via ruthless competitiveness, as unpleasant as it may be for a majority of people, is STILL a better place to exist than one dominated by the fascism and the totalitarianism which is never far behind.  Not just better from me (as a guy who pulls more than my own weight) but for everyone in society except those tiny minority who end up with the reigns of totalitarian power.  In my current thesis, Socialism is not achievable without these completely intolerable evils, and evolution out of such a state would be very difficult whereas with Libertarianism or Anarchy moving beyond the awful aspects of these is actually likely.

Back OT, no, Bitcoin did nothing to move me from Socialism to Libertarianism, and if anything it made me even more aware of what thieving scum a lot of self-proclaimed Libertarians are.  I've more or less made the move in spite of Bitcoin.

Elwar
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2870
Merit: 1456


Viva Ut Vivas


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2014, 10:31:57 AM
 #571


Seeing Socialism (or Collectivism) up close and personal in a recent encounter with the EPA has changed my views and willingness to call myself a Socialist even in jest.  I realize now that Socialism is unlikely to ever come about without being intertwined and fertilized with fascism (merger of state and corporate power.)

I believe that 'transfer of wealth' is the only workable way to have a steady-state society which is worth living in.  The reason why is that most people are hopeless losers and lack the potential to produce enough value to fund a reasonable life while a minority can do so with ease.  At least in our technical societies of these days...hunter/gatherer societies (which we evolved to exist in) did not produce the same dynamics.  It is this believe in the necessity of transfer of wealth that was the main reason I called myself a Socialist.

Many, if not most of my views mirror those ascribed to Libertarians (though not monopolized by them in spite of what they believe.)  I never did care for the dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest malice that I see in that movement even though I believe I could thrive in such an environment personally if I choose to do so.

At this point I feel that a cold hard world where one is free to exploit one's peers on an individual basis via ruthless competitiveness, as unpleasant as it may be for a majority of people, is STILL a better place to exist than one dominated by the fascism and the totalitarianism which is never far behind.  Not just better from me (as a guy who pulls more than my own weight) but for everyone in society except those tiny minority who end up with the reigns of totalitarian power.  In my current thesis, Socialism is not achievable without these completely intolerable evils, and evolution out of such a state would be very difficult whereas with Libertarianism or Anarchy moving beyond the awful aspects of these is actually likely.

Back OT, no, Bitcoin did nothing to move me from Socialism to Libertarianism, and if anything it made me even more aware of what thieving scum a lot of self-proclaimed Libertarians are.  I've more or less made the move in spite of Bitcoin.

A fair observation. The key is that if the small percentage of society that is actually capable of taking care of themselves are left free to improve their own lives they tend to improve more than just their own lives in the process. If, instead of working on inventing the lightbulb, Edison was obligated to spend half of his week feeding the homeless or doing some other charity work it would have been time wasted and the lightbulb would have taken much longer to get invented, if ever. But it improved everyone's life, not just his own. Did he make money off of it? Yes, that was part of his motivation to not just go live in the mountains and fish all day when things became difficult.

There are a lot of scammers out there in the Bitcoin world. The less intelligent will get taken advantage of. It is a clear case of smart, taking from less smart. But other smart people will be able to build systems to not only protect their own bitcoins but those of other people. They will certainly be motivated by profit for part of it as well as seeing a problem that requires a solution.

It has been said that if you were to take all of the money in the world right now and distribute it equally to everyone, it is very likely that over the years the balance of money would eventually end up again where it is today.

First seastead company actually selling seasteads: Ocean Builders https://ocean.builders  Of course we accept bitcoin.
Seastead talk at http://seasteadtalk.org
gentlemand
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2128
Merit: 1966


Your dearest bum chum


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 10:40:07 AM
 #572

The idea of a libertarian society sounds worthy in principle. The reality would be grotesque for all but a hardened few. Strangely like how communism turned out, not that a truly communist society has ever existed.

Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 09, 2014, 12:14:31 PM
Last edit: October 09, 2014, 12:31:44 PM by Beliathon
 #573

I believe that 'transfer of wealth' is the only workable way to have a steady-state society which is worth living in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

The reason why is that most people are hopeless losers and lack the potential to produce enough value to fund a reasonable life while a minority can do so with ease.
Actually, that's mostly down to genetic factors, and the income of your parents.

http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/10/genes-dont-just-influence-your-iq-they-determine-how-well-you-do-school
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/10/02/1408777111
http://www.businessinsider.com/sat-chart-score-vs-income-2014-3

Surprise, capitalism is super unfair! The fact that you couldn't google this shit yourself actually dovetails nicely into my next point...

I never did care for the dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest malice that I see in that movement even though I believe I could thrive in such an environment personally if I choose to do so.
Why am I not surprised? The fact that you're foolish enough to think you would thrive is a strong indication that you would probably fail and die horribly.



Anyway, social darwinism is top-notch bullshit-insanity.

At this point I feel that a cold hard world where one is free to exploit one's peers on an individual basis via ruthless competitiveness, as unpleasant as it may be for a majority of people, is STILL a better place to exist than one dominated by the fascism and the totalitarianism which is never far behind.
Fascism, you mean like the corporate oligarch neo-fascism that capitalist society is rapidly (d)evolving into as we speak?

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 01:46:48 PM
Last edit: October 09, 2014, 04:18:39 PM by practicaldreamer
 #574

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

This empathy/compassion/altruism isn't something that is alien to human beings - rather it defines us as a species. As soon as you step away from "From each..." you are one step closer to 1% owning a half of planet Earth. No way around it.


If, instead of working on inventing the lightbulb, Edison was obligated to spend half of his week feeding the homeless or doing some other charity work it would have been time wasted and the lightbulb would have taken much longer to get invented, if ever. But it improved everyone's life, not just his own. Did he make money off of it? Yes, that was part of his motivation to not just go live in the mountains and fish all day when things became difficult.

  The experience of the development of Bitcoin, and the reason we are all here in the first place having discussions like this, would seem to contradict this. Open source would seem to contradict this. Maybe we should ask Amir. Was your work, Amir, on the development of Bitcoin motivated by financial gain, or was it rather a vocation/a labour of love - because you realised that in Bitcoin there was something that might help make this world a better place ?


   We need also to seperate the economic from the political (although they are of course intertwined).

To me a system whereby the wealth of the nation (land/natural resources) are held in the hands of the people of that nation - and yet the free market is allowed to operate and offer incentives within this (public ownership) framework, seems about on the money to me.
   Something not dissimilar to the Chinese model - who, after all, have had to overcome huge obstacles to have recently become the worlds largest economy  Wink. The political dimensions of China may be questionable(or they may not) - but a political superstructure built upon a privately owned economic infrastructure, as we have in the west, is a sham also - and perhaps more so than in China.
cuddaloreappu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 02:39:38 PM
 #575

Beliathon

As I am trying to read through the things  you referred, I am getting the feeling that you are trying to prove the existence of empathy and altruism in humans!

 there is no disagreement about the fact if scientifically proved and mirror neurons and such from my side, I accept there is empathy and altruistic consciousness among every one of us.

According to  evolution the genes for both selfishness and empathy are both inside every individual, and the more  expression of the respective genes determines the traits characteristic of the individual whether selfishness or altruism.

and therefore my argument is not that empathy and altruism does not exist but rather they are always under represented in any given population say around (5-10%)

So I want to get this clear to you...

 I am trying to find  scientific reference for the distribution of these characteristic and will get back sooner!

tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1043


View Profile
October 09, 2014, 11:26:07 PM
 #576

First, thanks for the points above Elwar.  I find most of them worth considering.

I never did care for the dog-eat-dog survival of the fittest malice that I see in that movement even though I believe I could thrive in such an environment personally if I choose to do so.
Why am I not surprised? The fact that you're foolish enough to think you would thrive is a strong indication that you would probably fail and die horribly.

I made the statement with some deliberation based on observations of my various achievements.  I do harbor some doubts about whether I really have the potential to be a successful warlord.  Certainly I would prefer not to try for a number of reasons, and this is the main reason I don't bitch about taxes a whole lot.

<snip - Lord Russell graphic with quote>

How funny.   I was just recently quasi-studying Russell, or at least looking up some of his quotes within the last few days.  I ran across this one first:

Quote
"Scientific societies are as yet in their infancy. . . . It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fitche laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. . . . Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. . . .”----Bertrand Russell,1953

All I could do is stand awestruck and think: "My gosh, they pulled it off!"  Quite possibly in the way that Russell prescribed [predicted? warned?].  It's always been a source of interest to me that Assange and Snowden followed the atypical career path when it came to education.

FWIW, the reason I stumbled upon the quote is that I happened to have taken an interest in trying to figure out why the autism rate is now around 1-in-70 and on a path to be 1-in-small_int within my lifetime.  This will absolutely effect me personally unless I meet a bus, so it is a source of mystery worth studying.

Another quote I especially like is this:
Quote
“Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.”
I find Lord Russell to be something of a soul-mate in that he has a sort of a brutal honesty that I admire and try to achieve.

I am fairly unimpressed by the eugenics work of Russell, Huxley, Rockefeller, etc.  As far as I'm concerned they did little more any Mongolian tribesman or other members of societies who lived by animal husbandry accomplished countless times over the eons.  Being animated by Darwin's  theories presented during the age of enlightenment simply served to elevate their own sense of self-importance it seems to me.  The basic ideas are easily grasped and/or formulated by a clever teen...and it is fortunate to do so at that age because one may move on more easily.


Interesting read.  At least the first few pages.  I'll get back to the rest later.

At this point I feel that a cold hard world where one is free to exploit one's peers on an individual basis via ruthless competitiveness, as unpleasant as it may be for a majority of people, is STILL a better place to exist than one dominated by the fascism and the totalitarianism which is never far behind.
Fascism, you mean like the corporate oligarch neo-fascism that capitalist society is rapidly (d)evolving into as we speak?

Yes.

To be clear, I now see the push toward Collectivism to be a major engine accounting for this rapid devolution.  And an engine carefully tuned by the very 'corporate oligarch neo-fascist capitalists' of which you speak.  It's a recent epiphany for me and one which I'm finding rather soul-crushing but that's the price one pays for being prone to call a spade a spade.


tvbcof
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1043


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 12:31:56 AM
 #577

The idea of a libertarian society sounds worthy in principle. The reality would be grotesque for all but a hardened few. Strangely like how communism turned out, not that a truly communist society has ever existed.

This is where I have some very recent questions in my philosophies.

Yes, I agree, but consider how grotesque life could be for people living in stack-n-pack human habitats, kept going mentally with a cocktail of antidepressants, physically by pharmacological measures pioneered in cattle feedlots, and occupying their day in service to some corp/gov entity who they love and trust mainly because of a lifetime of highly tuned propaganda and some measure of chemical lobotomization which is, for many people at least, tuned to just avoid destroying their productive capacity.

Would the battle for survival in a more 'primitive' social mode really be that inferior to the crushing numbness of something like the above?  I'm starting to have some real doubts about it.  I guess that was what Orwell was trying to get at in his comparison between the outer party and the proles.

Part B in my recent re-orientation is a question about whether we are really at the point where we need to adopt a 'human habitat' model in order to 'save the earth.'  At least here in the U.S.  I've always been skeptical about this but only recent really started to think about it in more hard numeric terms and think about how/why the philosophy is so deeply ingrained.  At least in 'my people' (for lack of a better term.)


MasterCasino
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 91
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 05:10:23 AM
 #578

The idea of a libertarian society sounds worthy in principle. The reality would be grotesque for all but a hardened few. Strangely like how communism turned out, not that a truly communist society has ever existed.


Blah blah.. They are all the same.. You know who loses? Us, the people.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 10, 2014, 11:52:29 AM
 #579

If you really wanted to prevent horrendous ecological catastrophe, you would need to stop global industrial production in its tracks. And the time to do so would've been twenty years ago. It is abundantly clear that this train we're on is not going to stop anytime soon. It is not even going to slow. There is no political will for non-profitable anti-industrialism to be found within capitalism.

My advice: Forget about Earth.  You're powerless without the ability to communicate in the language of capitalism - that is, without the capability to dispense violence on a mass scale.  Just enjoy the crazy ride of the Halocene Extinction event as we plow on toward our own potential extinction.

Remember Aaron Swartz, a 26 year old computer scientist who died defending the free flow of information.
practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 10, 2014, 02:15:53 PM
Last edit: October 10, 2014, 04:02:47 PM by practicaldreamer
 #580

All I could do is stand awestruck and think: "My gosh, they pulled it off!"  Quite possibly in the way that Russell prescribed [predicted? warned?].  It's always been a source of interest to me that Assange and Snowden followed the atypical career path when it came to education.
Absolutely agree. Ivan Illich, in "Deschooling Society" is instructive here. Anyone who knows anything has always attained that knowledge through autodidacticism, in my view. They may or may not have been formally educated. Einstein springs to mind writing his notes under the desk in the clerks office (though he was of course formally educated also) - and Wittgenstein, whose formal education was in engineering but was basically self taught in philosophy. The point being that the freedom from academic constraint helped them to flourish.

Which elephant is the smarter ? The one that has been taught to climb through hoops in the circus - or the one providing for itself in the wilderness ?

Quote
“Really high-minded people are indifferent to happiness, especially other people's.”
I find Lord Russell to be something of a soul-mate in that he has a sort of a brutal honesty that I admire and try to achieve.

LOL - Lord is the operative word there  Cheesy. British aristocracy. Though I wouldn't for one minute use that to detract away from Russells genius.
I don't really know what he meant by the statement above as we don't have the context - though I suspect that it wasn't without irony.


It has to be said, as a matter of interest, that it could be argued that Russell (in his private life at least) was a "libertarian". Certainly, he believed in "open love" (the primacy of the free market perhaps ?) in his relationships to his lovers, especially Lady Ottoline Morrell.

Unfortunately, though Russell himself was more than happy to take on lovers in addition to Morrell, it soon transpired that when it was she that was taking on the lovers it worked much less well for Russell  Angry

In the context of this thread, read into that what you will.

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!