Bitcoin Forum
November 13, 2018, 11:33:13 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.0 [Torrent].
 
   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 33429 times)
cuddaloreappu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 06:09:22 AM
 #661

and who are those  agents in this hopelessly enslaved matrix world...

funny how libertarians can  view the agents as those who come and collect the tax.

and socialist can view those agents as vangaurds of the capitalist system...
1542151993
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542151993

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542151993
Reply with quote  #2

1542151993
Report to moderator
1542151993
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542151993

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542151993
Reply with quote  #2

1542151993
Report to moderator
1542151993
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542151993

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542151993
Reply with quote  #2

1542151993
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1542151993
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542151993

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542151993
Reply with quote  #2

1542151993
Report to moderator
1542151993
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1542151993

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1542151993
Reply with quote  #2

1542151993
Report to moderator
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 08:58:56 AM
 #662

You may believe in such ideals, but in the real world, you
would not just hand me over your bitcoins just
because you have the opinion that ownership/property
is a false/flawed/bad/primitive/whatever concept.

**CORRECT ME IF IM WRONG AND GIVE ME YOUR COINS Smiley **

In a capitalist system, money is power. Handing over Bitcoins would be transferring power from one person to another. For the anti-capitalist, Bitcoin is not ideal. Freicoin would be better-suited for participating in an anarchistic community. I confess, I have not yet contributed hash-power to that alt-coin. I have also failed to set up a testnet server for darkwallet testing.

Quote
Therefore, there is the context of ideals, and there is the
context of everyday life.  

2 totally different things....And if we are not speaking
from the same context, then it is
difficult to have a meaningful discussion.

I vaguely recall believing I "owned" my ideas. I don't know if that was nature or nurture. I have since realized that ideas do not happen in isolation. Independent co-invention is common when conditions are just right. There was I time when was about 5 that I thought I invented the word "okey-dokey." It turns out that when trying to come up with a non-sense word, I simply came up with one I had probably heard about once or twice before.

Patents scare me because independent co-invention is not a defense. Violence is clearly implied when people are prevented from using their own inventions for a period of up to 20 years. For example, GM was not able to use the battery technology developed for the EV1 in the Chevy volt. They sold the patents to an oil company that went on to restrict high-capacity NiMH batteries (over 3 Amp-hours (AA size)). It took me a while to figure out how Toyota was able to use NiMH batteries, and still offer a "plug-in" hybrid. The answer: the "plug-in" model uses the more expensive Lithium-ion battery chemistry.

I recently had my bike helmet stolen. It is a nice helmet, worth about $70 new. I realized that used helmets have no resale value. I hope somebody is making good use of it, rather than it sitting in the trash somewhere. I am a pack-rat, so I have a spare I can use until I can buy a replacement.



James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 10:05:48 AM
 #663

now how do you modify this selfishness which is genetically hard coded in majority of humans?

by teaching empathy at school and making them watch socialism movie?

by hanging socialist sign boards across the city?

Any solution we propose for how people live must be in their enlightened self interest. Call it whatever you will, but our current society is about blind consumption and short term thinking. It's pretty shit and could be much better.

I feel like the people arguing here, are mostly arguing over terms than real substantive differences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Issues_in_anarchism#Definitional_concerns

For how socialism could be achieved through markets:

http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Practical_Post-Scarcity_Video

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free-market_anarchism#Left-wing_market_anarchism

This left-right thing is nonsense anyway, I don't even believe in it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-left_anarchy

As an ideal anarcho-capitalism is just as utopic as anarcho-communism. I've never heard a good answer as to who enforces property ownership. It's worth understanding that ownership of land (on which we were all born and belonged to nobody) is a purely western concept. Property is connected to labour- you might own the building, but you cannot own property titles to unused land without an enforcer/mafia.
Erdogan
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 854
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 11:00:42 AM
 #664

That book explains that in hunter-gatherer societies, there is no scarcity. The commons provide all that is need. If supplies need to time to replenish, they can simply move to the next area. With no property to defend, wars are avoided simply by walking away.


No scarcity, huh? You need to have a pretty peculiar definition of scarcity to support that proposition.
practicaldreamer
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 770
Merit: 500


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 12:41:28 PM
 #665


I vaguely recall believing I "owned" my ideas. I don't know if that was nature or nurture. I have since realized that ideas do not happen in isolation. Independent co-invention is common when conditions are just right. There was I time when was about 5 that I thought I invented the word "okey-dokey." It turns out that when trying to come up with a non-sense word, I simply came up with one I had probably heard about once or twice before.


Great insight. You are backed up philosophically by Wittgenstein when he said that there is no private language - and by Chomsky, by implication, in his ideas of how we acquire language.

   Its the denial of these inherently social aspects of being a human being that annoys me. Leads to all sort of problems. Annoys me to see people riding off the back of that which they are garnering from us all - and then denying it.


Re. land ownership. I don't have much time just now, so I'll only say one word - Allotment
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 01:45:39 PM
 #666

 I speak the language of love, you speak the language of fear.

Well right now you're speaking the language of "making others wrong".  
You sound like that "Dank" guy right there, no offense. lol.
 
Loving people seek to understand others first rather than
be understood.  Not sure I see that much of that in you.
But I think you would be understood better if you stick
to one context at a time and to allow yourself to explain
things within other people's worldviews and definitions.

take care JF
The tricky thing about that is... I do understand you. I was subjected to the same indoctrination you were.

I guess I'm just not ready to be unplugged from the matrix
and ascend to the Shangri-La of wisdom as you have.
The real pity is the mental anguish you will subject yourself to by clinging to a dying system built upon a foundation of falsehood about human nature.

To believe humans are inherently selfish creatures is to believe that a 300 years dead philosopher had a better grasp of our nature than the whole of modern science. An absurdity that borders on religious levels of non-logic. Why do you cling to this outdated Hobbesian notion in the face of the heaps of evidence I have laid out this very thread?  The only conclusion I can draw is that you are incapable of unlearning your indoctrination in the same way the religious person is incapable of unlearning theirs.

As religion is a language virus that dulls critical thinking, perhaps the same is true of any system instilled in the formative years which we are taught to accept without question. All authority must be questioned, all assertions must be questioned. Without the vital scientific tool of doubt, a child is left unable to discern for himself what is true from the myths the herd has accepted as "cultural truth".

Capitalism is one such cultural truth (read the Emphatic Ciyvilization). Homo Sapien monogamy is another (read Sex at Dawn). Both are lies. Both are melting away, right now. In capitalism's, dear reader, you should hope it is melting faster than the polar ice caps.

I hope one day we come to see formative years indoctrination as mental child abuse that is just as repugnant as physical abuse. Creating brainwashed intellectual cripples permanently damages not only the child but also the world.

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

Activity: 116
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 01:58:23 PM
 #667

Comment above is spot on. We are told to be individualistic by nature, then reinforced by artificial scarcity and artificial need to compete.

The truth is we are headed towards 95% unemployment as only 5% of human labour will be needed to produce everything we need before the current century ends. Have fun trying to keep an economy alive with such a situation.
herzmeister
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764
Merit: 1000



View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 02:52:01 PM
 #668


Great insight. You are backed up philosophically by Wittgenstein when he said that there is no private language - and by Chomsky, by implication, in his ideas of how we acquire language.


Right, everything is a remix, we're only standing on the shoulders of giants, etc...

Still, in German we (of course) have a word to describe the level of novelty and originality: Schöpfungshöhe

https://localbitcoins.com/?ch=80k | BTC: 1LJvmd1iLi199eY7EVKtNQRW3LqZi8ZmmB
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 03:05:04 PM
 #669


To believe humans are inherently selfish creatures is to believe that a 300 years dead philosopher had a better grasp of our nature than the whole of modern science. An absurdity that borders on religious levels of non-logic. Why do you cling to this outdated Hobbesian notion in the face of the heaps of evidence I have laid out this very thread?  

I don't recall ever making the assertion that humans are "inherently selfish creatures".
Humans operate on a broad spectrum of different levels of consciousness,
from the psychopathic to the saintly.  

The difference between rational  self-interest and "selfishness"
is the inclusion of others in one's thoughts and values.  I was
about to say something about free trade falling under the umbrella
of rational self-interest, but the point would be moot if you don't
believe in the concept of ownership.

genjix
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 03:19:27 PM
 #670

Comment above is spot on. We are told to be individualistic by nature, then reinforced by artificial scarcity and artificial need to compete.

The truth is we are headed towards 95% unemployment as only 5% of human labour will be needed to produce everything we need before the current century ends. Have fun trying to keep an economy alive with such a situation.

A lot of people is going to die or be disenfranchised. That's the way it has to be, I'm sorry.

Those of us that are organised will thrive however with the rise of ideological movements as the alternative base of political power.

Humans act altruistic or selfish depending on biological makeup, upbringing or environment. We possess both qualities- some more than other and altruism is well documented by science. Social darwinism as a social theory is old, outdated and discredited.
However to be effective, our proposals must speak both to altruism and enlightened self-interest.

As a political activist who rejects utopianism, it's important we think about our action here and now with a mind of where we want to go towards. Preserving individual spirit is the most important goal for breeding liberty. Liberty and equality are not always the same, sometimes opposed.

There is just no other way, people are going to die. Our trajectory cannot continue its insanity.
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 03:29:21 PM
 #671

Comment above is spot on. We are told to be individualistic by nature, then reinforced by artificial scarcity and artificial need to compete.

The truth is we are headed towards 95% unemployment as only 5% of human labour will be needed to produce everything we need before the current century ends. Have fun trying to keep an economy alive with such a situation.

A lot of people is going to die or be disenfranchised. That's the way it has to be, I'm sorry.
(...)
There is just no other way, people are going to die. Our trajectory cannot continue its insanity.

I read recently that if everyone on the planet lived with a Rwandan standard of living, Earth could feasibly support a population of 15 billion. But if everyone lived with a North American standard of living, Earth could only support 1.2 billion humans.

The trouble is, everyone wants the better standard of living and no one seems to want to stop breeding...

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 13, 2014, 04:42:08 PM
 #672


I vaguely recall believing I "owned" my ideas. I don't know if that was nature or nurture.

I reckon you were still in the stage of childhood egocentrism - unfortunately, it is a stage that seems to be not only not completely passed through by many adults, but positively encouraged on a consumerist/cultural level.

BTW. I tend to agree regarding Freicoin - but it would require a seismic shift in consciousness for it to ever catch on (in the west at least - I believe demurrage has its roots in Islam ?)


Great insight. You are backed up philosophically by Wittgenstein when he said that there is no private language - and by Chomsky, by implication, in his ideas of how we acquire language.


Right, everything is a remix, we're only standing on the shoulders of giants, etc...

Still, in German we (of course) have a word to describe the level of novelty and originality: Schöpfungshöhe

I wish I could read that link - its in german and I wasn't very succesful in getting a translation. I'd love to know how the germans decide on an individuals level of novelty and originality.

Do we create ? Or do we discover ?
phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 05:11:20 PM
 #673

That book explains that in hunter-gatherer societies, there is no scarcity. The commons provide all that is need. If supplies need to time to replenish, they can simply move to the next area. With no property to defend, wars are avoided simply by walking away.


No scarcity, huh? You need to have a pretty peculiar definition of scarcity to support that proposition.


I hate to echo genjix's grim prediction, but our brains do not handle large numbers well. A large enough number is considered infinite. For that to work in practice, we need a relatively small population. There is some hope: developed nations, which use the most resources, tend to have low birth-rates.

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
jonald_fyookball
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 05:14:55 PM
 #674


  developed nations, which use the most resources, tend to have low birth-rates.


Poorer, less educated (dumber?) people seem to have more kids as well.  

Ever see that movie Idiocracy?  


phillipsjk
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1008
Merit: 1000

Let the chips fall where they may.


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 05:26:24 PM
 #675


  developed nations, which use the most resources, tend to have low birth-rates.


Poorer, less educated (dumber?) people seem to have more kids as well.  

Ever see that movie Idiocracy?  


That was not a documentary.

They were using exaggeration for comic effect.

Edit: the implication is: educate the poor, birth-rate solved!

James' OpenPGP public key fingerprint: EB14 9E5B F80C 1F2D 3EBE  0A2F B3DE 81FF 7B9D 5160
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 05:35:31 PM
 #676

educate the poor, birth-rate solved!
Something like that.

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

Activity: 1302
Merit: 1002


Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 05:40:24 PM
 #677


  developed nations, which use the most resources, tend to have low birth-rates.


Poorer, less educated (dumber?) people seem to have more kids as well.  

Ever see that movie Idiocracy?  


That was not a documentary.

They were using exaggeration for comic effect.
 

you don't say?

cuddaloreappu
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 714
Merit: 502


View Profile
October 13, 2014, 05:52:01 PM
 #678

Just found out these amazing stuff, speculations about the origins of bitcoin


The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin
https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/extropian-roots-bitcoin/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism


John Nash Is Satoshi Nakamoto?  The Creator of Bitcoin
http://bitcoinpricelive.com/john-nash-satoshi-nakamoto-bitcoin/

Where does libertarianism and socialism lie in all those complicated ideologies!
Beliathon
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784
Merit: 1000


https://youtu.be/PZm8TTLR2NU


View Profile WWW
October 13, 2014, 05:57:04 PM
 #679

Where does libertarianism and socialism lie in all those complicated ideologies!
"extropian thinking places strong emphasis on rational thinking and practical optimism. These principles "do not specify particular beliefs, technologies, or policies". Extropians share an optimistic view of the future" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extropianism)

So they're:
-pro rationality and therefore
-anti superstition (which includes religion)
-optimistic about humanity's future

Sounds like they'd be on board with the view that humanity will soon transcend capitalism and socially evolve to a more empathic, more ecologically harmonious, less-violent, more reasoned state of being on this planet.

For those who want to understand the present state of affairs in the USA, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

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 13, 2014, 07:11:38 PM
 #680

transhumanism is wishful thinking bordering on utopic fantasies and self-congratulatory masturbation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHVtUw5wToA
a kind of techno fascism with no rooting in the present, nor in human nature but rather some psuedo-scientific future projections.
it's the palm reading of techno-philes.
bitcoin users suffer it when they talk about self-driving cars and crap like that:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2j2uia/having_your_own_local_economy_with_bitcoin/
this "vision" is not one of freedom through empowerment but of utopic convenience.
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!