Bitcoin Forum
December 06, 2016, 04:22:25 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: George Michael -- Marxist Libertarian?  (Read 3694 times)
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 02:45:13 PM
 #21

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:
Quote
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.



Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 02:45:54 PM
 #22

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:10:36 PM
 #23

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems. 
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:
Quote
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.



Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.
I reject your argument, because its based on a guess.
your worldview says, that people are egoistic assholes. In a world full of egoistic assholes, its true that a free market/liberalism would work best, as everyone would pull equally hard to get their share.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 03:31:37 PM
 #24

The default for private property rights is very similar to what exits, collectivist ideals of property rights require enforcement structures.  Therefore, it's impossible for communism to function in the absence of central control of economic systems.
no, collectivist ideals does not require enforcement structures. Its not impossible for communism to function with out central control, all it requires is that people are not narcissistic assholes, and begins care about other persons well being. There is no need for central control.

For any society larger than Dumbar's Number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number) that is dependent upon members of that society treating each other with the kind of mutual respect that is required for a truly voluntary commune to exist, some form of social hiearchy with the capacity to impose it's will upon individuals is required.  Otherwise it's unstable.  This pretty much describes any group larger than a (relatively small) church business meeting.  No town, city, county, state or nation can function otherwise; regardless of whether or not they are communist, libertarian or other.  Even libertarian ideals require a common social order that can be enforced upon individual members; but ideally that common social order is minimalist in nature.  Communism cannot be minimalist in this fashion.  It's literally impossible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar%27s_number:
Quote
Dunbar's number is a suggested cognitive limit to the number of people with whom one can maintain stable social relationships.



Yes, because it's an educated guess on the average.  You see, people vary and it's difficult to nail down such a number because we kinda can't do social experiements on human beings in order to refine the guess.
I reject your argument, because its based on a guess.
your worldview says, that people are egoistic assholes. In a world full of egoistic assholes, its true that a free market/liberalism would work best, as everyone would pull equally hard to get their share.
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?

My thoughts are along the same lines as Moonshadow's. Collectivism will only work for groups smaller than some size. Maybe it is around 150, maybe it is higher... but there is some number beyond which the human brain must stereotype. Collectivist groups can function within capitalist frameworks but not vice versa. Voluntary collectivism is unstable at large scales over multiple generations. However, I have my doubts that Lib/ancap societies could out-compete statist neighbors in the short term. It is likely that the ideal society is situation-dependent; the most robust solution is a system that can mutate to meet whatever current challenges it faces.

Quote
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?
Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 05:21:25 PM
 #25

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

Yes really.  Why - what would you call a system that is based on private enterprise?

kokjo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050

You are WRONG!


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 05:45:17 PM
 #26

Quote
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?
Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.
sure it is, but in some situations it could be useful, in a moment of crisis its way better to have a dictator, then a democracy, but right not im not suggesting that we should centralize control.
im only suggesting that we should share and be nice to each other, that's all.

"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves and wiser people so full of doubts." -Bertrand Russell
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 05:53:36 PM
 #27

Quote
but you must admit that it sounds rather inefficient, that we have to fight about every little breadcrumb, right?
Having some central group decide who gets what sounds more inefficient. It is relative.
sure it is, but in some situations it could be useful, in a moment of crisis its way better to have a dictator, then a democracy, but right not im not suggesting that we should centralize control.
im only suggesting that we should share and be nice to each other, that's all.

Don't you know people who are constantly being shared with and never share back? It is not even necessarily that they don't wish to share back, they just never have anything to share back because they repeatedly misuse the resources/opportunities that were shared with them and don't respond to social signals that they should change their ways. They need to "keep it real" or believe it is bad to "let other people change you".
Dutch Merganser
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
April 10, 2012, 06:07:08 PM
 #28


.

"Science flies you to the Moon, religion flies you into buildings."
 - Victor Stenger

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and the rulers as useful."
 - Seneca the Elder (ca. 54 BCE - ca. 39 CE) Roman rhetorician
MoonShadow
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
April 10, 2012, 10:43:57 PM
 #29

Marxism , by it's own definition, seeks to establish a predominately communist society. 

In the broadest sense, Marxism posits that a communist society will emerge regardless.

But perhaps it is true that Marxism is not strictly relevant to the discussion at hand.  I'm not sure what Brits would call their social welfare system.  Technically it might be considered benevolent monarchism.  But that doesn't seem accurate.

Capitalism of course.

Their social welfare system?  Really?

Yes really.  Why - what would you call a system that is based on private enterprise?

Britain's social welfare system is based upon taxation, not private enterprise.  So I wouldn't call it that.  I wouldn't call anything capitalism, because the term is as tainted as "communism", and so is the economic systems that people tend to refer to them with that term.  There is no such thing as a free market in this modern world, so it's not accurate in an economic sense to call Britain (or the US) capitalist nations.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

- Carroll Quigley, CFR member, mentor to Bill Clinton, from 'Tragedy And Hope'
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 11, 2012, 06:43:08 AM
 #30

...snip...

Britain's social welfare system is based upon taxation, not private enterprise.  So I wouldn't call it that.  I wouldn't call anything capitalism, because the term is as tainted as "communism", and so is the economic systems that people tend to refer to them with that term.  There is no such thing as a free market in this modern world, so it's not accurate in an economic sense to call Britain (or the US) capitalist nations.

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.  If taxation means the system isn't capitalist in your book, then there will never be a capitalist system for you. For the sake of clear communication, why not use the word with the same meaning as everyone else?

benjamindees
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1288


View Profile
April 11, 2012, 06:48:22 AM
 #31

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.

How would you say that Bitcoin works, then?  Inflation tax?  Do you think it will fail when the block reward drops?

Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics
cbeast
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1722

Let's talk governance, lipstick, and pigs.


View Profile
April 11, 2012, 12:06:27 PM
 #32


.
It even has the upside down satanic stars the same as the new GOP logo.

Any significantly advanced cryptocurrency is indistinguishable from Ponzi Tulips.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
April 11, 2012, 01:58:29 PM
 #33

You can't have private enterprise or a free market without taxation to pay for infrastructure.

How would you say that Bitcoin works, then?  Inflation tax?  Do you think it will fail when the block reward drops?

Bitcoin is is not private enterprise or a free market.  Its a cryptocurrency.

Pages: « 1 [2]  All
  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!