Libertarianism and interventionnism

[David Latapie]

Probably a recurring topic, but since I "accidentally" started such a discussion and people wanted to reply (and also because I have throwing away a long answer ^^), I am opening a thread here, I believe it is the best location.

Original discussion: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg8597628#msg8597628

It is self-moderated. My thread, my rules.

[1714131257]

1714131257

[1714131257]

1714131257

[David Latapie]

This looks like fear of the long arm of the law to me. It is understandable for an individual, but not for a citizen.
I pay taxes because I want children to be educated, hospital to work, road to be in working state, science to progress (and the fact that individual corporations can achieve it concurrently is not enough of an argument for me).

You are not a citizen by choice. Citizenship is a form of slavery that says we own your body for being born in a certain geographical area.

I believe in society, even if I agree that inefficiency and outright corruption plague the world.

What do you mean.. you believe? Like in a god that you want others to be forced to sacrifice to?
EVERYONE wants a social situation where they can function as human being. Taxation is not a necessity for this Quite the contrary. To introduce violence and coercion to system ruins it for every honest player.

One shall not pay taxes because he is afraid of getting caught. One shall pay taxes because he believes in the project called society. To make a conceit, I'd say the fundamentals are strong, even if the implementation leaves an awful lot to be desired. I really believe that a nation could use a cryptocurrency as its main tool, even an anonymous one like Monero.

Then it's not taxes. Paying for services you use or want others to use with your money is just normal commerce. No need for adding guns to the equaiton.

People are complaining about greedy bastards and selfish miners, but what is paying taxes lest being caught? Not that different. Now, I agree that one shall have the right to refuse (and thus leave society) and this is hard to the point of being practically impossible at the moment (international waters or outer space, anyone?).

The differnce is that taxpayers support the system where "greedy" miners are kidnapped and/or killed if they resist forcefully giving away their profit.

• Life is full of things that you did not decide (like being born human). Better to light up a candle than to curse the darkness. Although this is not perfect (perfect would be close to international water or better yet outer space), you can move to another legislation and change your citizenship.
• A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here). When you say that "taxation is not a necessity", you are expressing your own belief, not an immutable truth (immutable truth are the province of hypothetico-deductive systems like maths and chess).
• I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".
• Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)?

A bit off-topic but since you are pursuing a non sequitur fallacy regarding belief: the Catholic Church (despite all the atrocities it perpetrated) did a fine job (till year 1000) in perpetuating a semblance of civilisation in Western Europe after the fall of the Roman Empire. And I'm saying this as an agnostic.

I have a pretty consequentialist vision of things. If mankind constantly balances between individualism and collectivism, between liberalism and interventionnism, betwee, private interest and public interest), I believe (yes, believe, please let me sacrifice someone on an altar) this is because it is the best reflection of his aspirations as a species. Human is social animal at heart. It is a monkey (living in tribe-sized community in the jungle), not a lion (strong enough to live by its own) and not an ant neither (completely devoid of individuality).

Both ardent individualists and ardent collectivists are extremists in my book. It's all about the balance. Of course, where to place the balance is a hard question, probably without definitive answer as long as the human brain will be what it is.

[hologram]

So if social contract implies censorship of bitcoin and hard informatics regulation, repression and spying of the citizen (like in "Thieves emporium", seriously read this book ) to be sure nobody use it illegally is ok ?

[Anon136]

So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.

[hologram]

Capitalist anarchist, libertarian and minarchist have a clear moral border between what is legit for a government to do and what is bad. Leftist don't have this, everything is good if it serve the "public interest" (something that don't even exist...), so nothing prevent them to push to radical collectivism like in Cuba.

[David Latapie]

So if social contract implies censorship of bitcoin and hard informatics regulation, repression and spying of the citizen (like in "Thieves emporium", seriously read this book ) to be sure nobody use it illegally is ok ?

You are trying to bring the debate on something else than the initial discussion. It was about "Are taxes inherently evil?" not about crypto in particular.

[hologram]

You are trying to bring the debate on something else than the initial discussion. It was about "Are taxe inheriently evil?" not about crypto in particular.

Nope, i want to debate on the "social contract" theory cause you justify taxes with it. So if this theory is false somewhere you lose your argument.

[Jungian]

Life is full of things that you did not decide (like being born human). Better to light up a candle than to curse the darkness. Although this is not perfect (perfect would be close to international water or better yet outer space), you can move to another legislation and change your citizenship.

Being born human is not a result of force of coercion and can therefore not be compared to being born property.
Oh, tell that to the people born in Syria, North Korea or any other horror state how they should just move. How about the Palestinians? The Jews in Germany.

So easy to sit in an comparative Ivory Tower.

I'm not a fan on using big words for the sake of it. Look at real slavery and the true horror it generates. Same goes for "kidnapping" and "guns".

The horrors of prison is very real. You keep talking like these things are not real because they aren't happening to you at this very second.
Are you honestly saying that people are not being kidnapped and put in the rape camps known as prison for defying the state by asserting their own rights to property and body?

How does going to prison for defying an arbitrary law differ from a mafia kidnapping from defying their law? They both come from the same logic. That might makes right.

Let's talk business. Offer and demand: there is a demand for taxation. Economy of scale: good luck making large structure work without spreading the cost and the maintenance - consider fixing just the part of the road you are actually walking on. Before the advent of state-owned schools, which part of the population was litterate (reminder: freedom starts when you can question what you are being told, and litteracy is a great way to do it)?

There is also a demand for child porn and slavery. It doens't matter if there is a demand for things that are immoral. It does not make them any more moral.
Of course there is a demand for free money by the people who benefit from getting them, and the power they bring.

[Jungian]

A contract should require two things: that you understand it and that you accept it (which in turns implies that you can refuse it). I accept the social contract for the most part and you seem not to. This doesn't make it less legible (even though the fact that you cannot practically refuse it is annoying, to say the least). I consider you are confusing "I refuse" and "Everyone shall refuse" (Russel's teapot here).

You are free to sign any contract you want. Where do I confuse this?

The fact that you can't refuse it says it's not a real contract, but a form of slavery.

[David Latapie]

So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.

First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not!
Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die.

[Anon136]

Capitalist anarchist, libertarian and minarchist have a clear moral border between what is legit for a government to do and what is bad. Leftist don't have this, everything is good if it serve the "public interest" (something that don't even exist...), so nothing prevent them to push to radical collectivism like in Cuba.

Na. Some capitalist anarchists like myself are consiquentialists. In theory we would be willing to support taxation if it lead to the right consequences. Some people would argue that we are not libertarians, but I think we are.

[hologram]

A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.

What will make people richer is an increase in productivity per capita, but the state prevent that by his interventionism in economy. No need for coercion.

[Jungian]

So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.

First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not!
Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die.

You are free to offer any social safety net you wish. Why do you feel the need to force people into it by the threat of violence to gain their possessions to redistribute?

No anarchist wants to stop you from setting up a working safety net that you may opt in to. The very idea that you would need force to do this seems to imply that you think it's a failed idea, because people can't voluntarily do it.

[David Latapie]

You are trying to bring the debate on something else than the initial discussion. It was about "Are taxe inheriently evil?" not about crypto in particular.

Nope, i want to debate on the "social contract" theory cause you justify taxes with it. So if this theory is false somewhere you lose your argument.

OK so I don't believe (or, say otherwise, "my own perception of the social contract is") that Bitcoin shall be censored, nor shall people be spied upon (they can accept to be monitored, but only under full consent).

Does it make you better understand my point?
By the way, discovered minarchism some months ago and I have some sympathy to it.
I may contemplate reading Thieves emporium, but I have very little patience for extremists of any kind - I'm not saying that Thieves Emporium is extremist, I did not even read a review of it yet)

[David Latapie]

Na. Some capitalist anarchists like myself are consiquentialists. In theory we would be willing to support taxation if it lead to the right consequences. Some people would argue that we are not libertarians, but I think we are.

So you are not against the principle of taxation, you are against the actual implementation, am I right?
(like CryptoNote is great, but the Bytecoin implementation is not)

[Anon136]

So maybe you can help me understand something. Why are lefties involved in a movement whos purpose, not by any mans imposition, but by its own nature, is to create a free market. I mean I welcome you guys. I welcome everyone. But i just dont understand why you guys would want to be involved in this. Wouldn't you rather support the money that the state uses to fund its self? You talk about how much you love government schools. You know those are mostly paid for by stealing the purchasing power of the money that they force everyone to use right? Why dont you use that money if you love government run schools so much. Now just to be clear, its not rhetorical, i dont want you to use that money, i personally want you to use crypto, its just a legit question that sounds rhetorical even though it isn't.

First, I would welcome a state to convert its currency into a cryptocurrency. Cryptodollars? Why not!
Second, my vision of interventionnism (or leftism, if you prefer) is: a safety net for everyone at a cost of a contribution. A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.
I believe in offer and demand (and not only for economy, also in biology or psychology, hence religions). But I also believe in safety net. I completely accept this is a Judeo-Christian thing at heart (caritas, justice) and I won't say it is rational (although there is some rationality in defending it, watch Nick Hanauer and Richard Wilkinson). It is my ideal of life, that people who fall won't die.

That all sounds great. I think it would be wonderful if societies had a safety net for those who, through no fault of their own, fall through the cracks. It happens. Sometimes people who don't deserve it at all get delt a bad hand. I totally support your right to do your part to provide such a safety net. I would never dream of trying to stop you from doing that. And i certainly would never dream of using violence against you to stop you from doing that. The question is, if i preferred not to fund the net would you extend the same respect to me that i extended to you by not using violence to try to prevent you from funding it, and not use violence against me to try to force me to fund it? (I would if it were empirically demonstrated to be truly effective and well tuned like you say, but lets say i wouldn’t just for the sake of the argument).

[Jungian]

Capitalist anarchist, libertarian and minarchist have a clear moral border between what is legit for a government to do and what is bad. Leftist don't have this, everything is good if it serve the "public interest" (something that don't even exist...), so nothing prevent them to push to radical collectivism like in Cuba.

Na. Some capitalist anarchists like myself are consiquentialists. In theory we would be willing to support taxation if it lead to the right consequences. Some people would argue that we are not libertarians, but I think we are.

Then you might as well start support child rape, if that somehow was to lead to the "right consequences"?

I'm not saying you do that, but if you start your argument from consequence, I don't see how you can be against anything.

[hologram]

OK so I don't believe (or, say otherwise, "my own perception of the social contract is") that Bitcoin shall be censored, nor shall people be spied upon (they can accept to be monitored, but only under full consent).

Does it make you better understand my point?
By the way, discovered minarchism some months ago and I have some sympathy to it.
I may contemplate reading Thieves emporium, but I have very little patience for extremists of any kind - I'm not saying that Thieves Emporium is extremist, I did not even read a review of it yet)

I understand your point, i wanted you to answer this. So in my own perception of the social contract public school is not something i agree with. How do we decide without a moral way to reflect about the place of government ?

And Thieves Emporium is a fiction about a failed USA that turned to a police state. You follow a young mother who try to survive in an agorist economy that take place in the deep web. It's not a philosophy book, more a book about how the western world can turn.

[David Latapie]

A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.

What will make people richer is an increase in productivity per capita, but the state prevent that by his interventionism in economy. No need for coercion.

A lot of people don't want to be productive. They have another vision of life. They want to live a simple life with their family, go fishing on a Saturday and have money to buy a gift for their son's birthday. What do you answer? That is it the governement's fault if they can't?

I consider that major companies are not encouraging the free markets, this is bad for their business - when are atop, you want to stay atop, oftentimes by any means necessary. How do you see anti-trust regulation? For or against the free market?

[Jungian]

A finely-tuned redistribution that doesn't prevent people to reach a high level of wealth, but prevent people to fall below the poverty level.

What will make people richer is an increase in productivity per capita, but the state prevent that by his interventionism in economy. No need for coercion.

A lot of people don't want to be productive. They have another vision of life. They want to live a simple life with their family, go fishing on a Saturday and have money to buy a gift for their son's birthday. What do you answer? That is it the governement's fault if they can't?

I consider that major companies are not encouraging the free markets, this is bad for their business - when are atop, you want to stay atop, oftentimes by any means necessary. How do you see anti-trust regulation? For or against the free market?

The idea that you can have a legal entity that is other then the persons who commit the deeds is laughable at best. Of course companies are against the free market, they are a product of the state and benefit from state protection and can use its law to drive out competition.

If people don't want to be productive they don't have to. A lot of people could live very simple lives if it weren't for inflation, taxation, debt and the constant need to grow the GDP to satisfy your debtors.