lichess.org
Donate

Bitcoin

> I dont get your "its a scam" comment about debts.
>I dont care if it is a scam or not, i want to get rid of it.

The global debt is due to nations borrowing fiat currency from central banks, like the Federal Reserve. The scam of it is central banks create the money out of nothing, lend it to governments, who take advantage of this ability to borrow to fund endless war (the USA does anyway), and the taxpayer is obligated to repay it out of earnings. It's contrived debt slavery, milking the taxpayer to fatten the banks and their crony corporations in energy, defense, agriculture and medicine that sit atop.

As far as other forms of debt like student loan and credit card, these are predatory practices that rely largely on monopolistic regulations and need to be put out by market forces that can offer competitive loan rates which is only possible in unregulated environments (such as one of decentralized lending platforms) and increased consumer awareness to avoid predatory lending. We must not be fool enough to entrust or empower government or laws to "regulate" our financial interactions (in fact violate our rights) naively fantasizing that it will somehow be to our benefit, rather we must take responsibility for whom and what practices we financially patronize and support.

The only "legitimate" form of debt in my opinion is personal debt... one individual rightfully owing another. None of these financial institutions (corporations as so-called legal personages) have legitimacy, and any debt to them, while it should be avoided in the first place, carries no moral obligation to fulfill, the entire corporate structure being a forced slavery system by virtue of the fact that only the central bank is legally authorized to produce money, while anyone else who attempts to do so is jailed or worse and must earn their money just to be able to live and operate in society... meanwhile through the mechanisms of inflation, taxation, war, subsidies, technology suppression, monopolistic regulation, and usury, the populace dependent on this system is squeezed mercilessly, and kept in a state of artificial scarcity so that the bulk of the resources of the planet can be sequestered and people can be kept in control by the financially elite corporate class (banking families and their cronies).

If the rats in your cage have all the cheese they want, they will do as they please. But if you make cheese very scarce, any rat will just about sell his soul for a bit of extra.

I highly recommend the "Hidden Secrets of Money" series by Mike Maloney to better understand the monetary system and the scam of national debt:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=DyV0OfU3-FU
@Priem19
> > The community is stronger than the individual; you should get used to it as it will never change.
>
> Vires In Numeris

I didn't know that it was Bitcoin's motto. That's quite funny. In the libertarian mind, the government is an evil force against which the people must rebel, and Bitcoin allows them to coordinate and destroy this evil force and its fake money with a new decentralized money in the hands of the people. That makes some amount of sense if you go back to the historical opposition to the monarchic state in the 18th century or if you see any earthly power as an usurpation of godly power.

But in a republic, the government is really just an institution of the state, which is the other name of the political community. Therefore the government IS, precisely, the embodiment of the strength in numbers of the nation! Of course it can be derailed into serving particular interests; then the citizens need to act so that it recovers its function. But seeing it as the enemy and thinking that when finally we get rid of it we will be free is to ignore the naturalness of the political community. In other words if you get rid of the government, you will create something new which will end up having the same properties as what you originally had. Again you will need the members to be vigilant and to steer it as well as they can. There is no way out of the political community, which we produce like ants produce anthills.

That being said, it costs me to say it but I have to agree with the other guy about investing in Bitcoin in the short term. I do think it makes sense to have a small investment in Bitcoin at this point, as it may go way up in short to mid term, and I've been personally invested for some time now. I'm less confident in its long-term prospects as I think it won't replace state-backed currencies and may be regulated or even banned by states. But it may also find a place along them. I don't know.

And by the way if you're interested to buy, Bitcoin has been in a clear uptrend from the beginning of the year and just had a dip, reaching a non-worrying low within the upward trend, so that might be a good point of entry if you are not yet in. I would just advise against investing a substantial part of your belongings, as you may well lose it -- even if it goes way up as it's very difficult to pick your exit point.
>But seeing it as the enemy and thinking that when finally we get rid of it
>we will be free is to ignore the naturalness of the political community.

The problem with this view, of the political community being natural, is that it fails to address the violence inherent in government, conflating the necessity to organize and cooperate voluntarily with the choice to engage in violence. One does not necessitate the other. All governments impose tax violently and monopolize the production of money using violence. Bitcoin is important because it has the potential to reduce and possibly end this monopoly on money production and ability to tax and inflate, and thus the enslavement and exploitation of the masses by this mechanism.

>In other words if you get rid of the government, you will create something new which
>will end up having the same properties as what you originally had.

This is the "inevitability" argument, akin to arguing that you can't end slavery because of "human nature". The point is that we are morally obliged to avoid supporting or contributing to violence as well as engaging directly in it, the 'naturalness of the political community' or need to organize voluntarily notwithstanding as it provides no excuse or justification for engaging in violence or supporting it in any way. The point is that the only reasonable position is that human problems and requirements must be solved and met by NON-VIOLENT, mutually voluntary means with the use of force being recognized as only morally legitimate when used in defense of human rights being violated.

If anarchy "leads to government" then it represents moral failure that needs to be rectified not that the concept is invalid. Exactly like saying freedom "leads to slavery", or peace "leads to war". Anarchy is nothing more than the consistent practice and philosophy of non-violence and equality of human rights, and any consistent practice of these principles is in fact anarchy. This is not a system to be tried to see if it works, but the only policy that is in alignment with morality that is to be striven for at all times, the abandonment of which is the abandonment of all human morality and decency.

>it can be derailed into serving particular interests;
>then the citizens need to act so that it recovers its function.

Talk about a pipe dream! The only functions worth recovering are those which are not based on violence... forced taxation can play no part if morality is to be honored.

https://i.imgur.com/DLrixgC.jpg
I don't just think it is inevitable and natural. I think it is good and I embrace it, including the violence. I cherish my country, not just its lakes and mountains and people but also its political institutions and traditions and its laws, I was forced to do the military and I am forced to pay taxes and I say YES to it all and expend extra effort to contribute in steering it in a good direction. That is in my view what decent men do and have always done -- not claiming there is another world never seen and this one is bad and must be destroyed. It's the old monotheistic crap, infinitely recycled in various secular views including anarchism.

The old messianic vision had in fact in its heart the absence of any violence. "The lion and the lamb will graze peacefully one beside the other...", have you heard of that? But that is a rejection of what life is at its core. Conflict is one of the most basic features of life (along with cooperation), and we are living beings. It is not some genetic defect that needs to be corrected through culture, it's life itself. The political community must be understood with this backdrop of constant potential conflict. It is a shaping of the violence if you will, a limited pacification that include internal constraints and defense against external intruders. It's not natural just in the sense that it's in our traditional culture or our genes, but in the sense that it matches our condition of intelligent living beings, it's the solution to the existing challenges, and that's why it exists everywhere and existed always (and why it's in our genes and culture in the first place!). You deny it but your confidence in the possibility of your unseen other world rests on nothing but your willingness to argue. "Show me wrong, spend hours debating me!" is your only argument. You have said nothing to make this otherworld credible. You want me to explain why it's not credible, and that means basically explaining the world to you. I think I understand part of it, but that's not the good way to argue against anarchism.

And by the way you keep insisting on your moral vision, but it rests on thin air. I don't share it; what now? I also think that deep down the idea that we must do this on moral grounds even if it's bound to fail (which you are almost saying) is a remain of the religious view in which what really matters is God watching us and keeping scores of our good deeds, with a big reward that we can expect. Maybe you were told that as a child and you still act on it. When you completely get rid of this, then you will naturally be led to alter your moral vision so that it makes more sense. Instead of starting with the moral vision, you will try to understand reality and see what is the best course of action given reality. A proper morality is one that leads you to act in a way favorable for you and your communities, not one that destroys you and your communities "but at least you were moral and that is the only thing that matter".

Again (as I know types like you have a hard time digesting it), my point is not that, alas, it is natural, inevitable, and we must resign to it. My point is that this is what life is and I embrace it. I don't compare it to your vision, no more than I compare actual drinking glasses to glasses that wouldn't be hollow, or actual girls to ones that would never get old, or actual food to food that I would not need to digest.

Finally the fact that you can classify something I say as a known argument that you have seen addressed in some book doesn't mean that the argument has no merit. Try to see past the talking points and the sales leaflet and to look more closely into reality instead. Some of these known arguments may be true even if there is a standard answer in the the anarchy FAQ (which I guess you are copying and pasting to this forum, with some cut and paste accidents in fact). Every ideology has standard answers for every objection addressed to it, that doesn't mean every ideology is true and refutes all its objections. By reading only authors defending anarchism you just reinforce the grip the ideology has on you.
Going back to the scam of the debt based monetary system, and understanding it. Here is a list of documentaries and books that, studied together and fully understood will lay it all out clearly and incontrovertibly.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJeemTQ7Vk

www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbarjpJhSLw

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyK4P7ZdOK8

www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcGh1Dex4Yo

www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlunSNY5B48

The Creature From Jekyll Island, G. Edward Griffin:
archive.org/details/pdfy--Pori1NL6fKm2SnY

Man, Economy, and State, Murry N. Rothbard:
mises.org/library/man-economy-and-state-power-and-market

Shelling Out, the Orgins of Money, Nick Szabo:
nakamotoinstitute.org/shelling-out/

The Ethics of Money Production, Jorg Guido Hulsmann:
mises.org/library/ethics-money-production

All Wars Are Bankers Wars, Michael Rivero:
www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/allwarsarebankerswars.pdf

These are listed (with similar topics) on my site under "Understanding Money":

http://governmentisslavery.com/forum/index.php

>I don't just think it is inevitable and natural. I think
>it is good and I embrace it, including the violence.

At least you are being honest, and revealing a sociopath mindset that is ignorant of and/or uncaring about morality. Violence (violating another's person or property against their will), is the definition of immorality, objectively speaking, as a matter of fact. Stating that you embrace violence on any level (other than self-defense or of other innocent people, which should be distinguished as defensive force rather than 'violence', which involves the *violation* of a person's rights), is to reject morality, basically admitting to being a piece of shit. So you might want to re-think that.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=Isb83V89iFA

>I cherish my country, not just its lakes and mountains and people
> but also its political institutions and traditions and its laws

What about the fact that most laws violate people's rights and are therefore inherently immoral? (You need me to make a very long list for you?) What about the 80% of non-violent offenders sitting in prisons run by a subsidized prison industry? What about the traditions of enslavement, eugenics, and genocide? What about the tradition of innocent people including children being bombed, kidnapped, and ripped from their parents often to be raped and sacrificed in satanic rituals? And that's just the tiniest start of my criticism... To ignore these things can only be accounted for by a complete deadening of empathy and total brainwashing. The tradition of the state is one of horrible violations and brutality of unfathomable proportions. You embrace and cherish that?

>Conflict is one of the most basic features of life (along with cooperation), and
>we are living beings. It is not some genetic defect that needs to be corrected
>through culture, it's life itself.

I agree with this statement, but that does in no way excuse our choice in the participation of conflict to take the role of aggressor. Human beings are distinguished from animals by the fact that we have the ability for empathy and higher reasoning, the ability to understand when we are causing harm to others or their property, and this capacity and the knowledge it gives us presents us with the choice to behave morally or not. Regardless of how natural or inevitable conflict or violence may be, it does not erase the objective basis for human rights and morality, and this is why the tradition of morality as "natural law" has been articulated by so many philosophers and authors.

>The political community must be understood with this backdrop
>of constant potential conflict. It is a shaping of the violence if you will,
>a limited pacification that include internal constraints and defense
>against external intruders.

Yes conflict should be expected, but it is important to be on the right side of that conflict (not as the aggressor or violator of rights, but as the defender of rights). So again we need to define 'violence' as distinct from defense, it can't be lumped together. "Conflict" is two elements: an aggressor, and a defender. Defense is justified, aggression is not. So when we refer to violence, and the necessity of defensive force, we must not conflate these two under "conflict" or "violence" to imply that because one is necessary, therefore the other is also necessary and justified.

Defensive force cannot use aggressive violence, in other words taxing people to pay for the military, as the people being aggressed upon to seize their money have every right under natural law to use defensive force to repel such an effort.

The problem is that under the guise of 'defense' countless aggressions are perpetrated. False flag events are staged to generate fake "threats" intended to justify aggressive actions as retaliation. The gross level of mass murder, pillaging, and destruction waged by the US government, and paid for by taxation, can by no reasonable measure be considered defensive, and the claim that it is is a grossly blatantly obvious and heinous lie.

> It's not natural just in the sense that it's in our traditional culture or
>our genes, but in the sense that it matches our condition of intelligent
>living beings, it's the solution to the existing challenges, and that's why
> it exists everywhere and existed always (and why it's in our genes and
>culture in the first place!).

The immorality of aggressive violence cannot be denied or excused because of what is in our genes, or because it seems inevitable, nor for any other reason.

> your confidence in the possibility of your unseen other world rests
>on nothing but your willingness to argue.

From your perspective maybe. From my perspective it's not an unseen other world that I am confident in the possibility of, and I have never stated anything even remotely like that. I have been very clear that what I am confident of is the morality of the non-aggression principle, the principle of respect for human rights, non-violence, non-participation in violence, and of taking personal responsibility to operate voluntarily rather than using violence in the form of taxation to solve problems or any other form.

> "Show me wrong, spend hours debating me!" is your only argument.

How obviously this statement is incorrect and intellectually dishonest it is, is asinine in the extreme. It is in fact a pathetic cop out to issues you apparently lack the capacity or inclination to address.

>And by the way you keep insisting on your moral vision, but it rests on thin air.

No it rests on observable fact. Morality is based on facts and the logical implication of them:

Fact:
No one (including yourself) desires their person or property to be taken, used, damaged, or violated against their will, that is to say everyone desires their person and belongings to be respected.

Fact:
Everyone understands that this desire, this value, is universal, that it's true for everyone.

The logical implication of these facts, if we are to formulate a logical code of behavior that allows us to demand that our own rights are respected, is that this code must be extended and applied universally and equally. How else could we have a logical claim to our own person and property being respected if it is not because such respect is due universally?

This has been pointed out and hinted at in every religious and moral philosophy known to man. This basic logic is present in the golden rule, the non-aggression principle, the wiccan rede, the declaration of independence, and even in the history and etymology of the very word 'conscience'... which is defined as the "knowledge of the difference between moral and immoral behavior", when the root translation is "to know together", or common sense.

>I don't share it; what now?

The laws of morality are like the laws of gravity. It's not a matter of belief. Either you recognize the way the law works and align yourself with it for favorable results, or you take a fall and suffer the consequences... personally this applies on a spiritual level, and collectively it can be readily seen to apply on on all levels including the physical. (Yes I used the word 'spiritual', which like many words carries unfortunate baggage, so I can clarify my meaning if it is unclear. For now I will state that it is not something religious or superstitious in nature and I would be happy to define it in down to earth terms if necessary.)

>I also think that deep down the idea that we must do this on
>moral grounds even if it's bound to fail (which you are almost saying)

No, it's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the right thing to do is the right thing to do. If you can reduce, stop, or eliminate one's participation or contribution to violence, then one is obligated to do so, and that support of the state clearly qualifies. You can't say, "well, we can't be non-violent because that will just fail". That's just a pathetic cop out born of a desperation to deny moral responsibility.

>is a remain of the religious view in which what really matters is God watching us
>and keeping scores of our good deeds, with a big reward that we can expect.

No, it's a view based on recognizing the moral imperative to not participate in violence. I don't even know what you are talking about when you say "God", mostly religion and the idea of a "reward" or "heaven" is just another cop out and born of the same psychological reasons: fear of taking personal responsibility, it's more comforting to imagine some all powerful authority that takes the burden of responsibility away and where we can instead take comfort in some fantasy of unconditional forgiveness with ponies and rainbows to reduce that big scary importance of our decisions here and now in this place. I find your insistence to interpret anarchy as necessarily equating to a religious viewpoint indicative that you are seeking to discredit the view without having to present facts and logic to do so.

The two most widespread and destructive religions on this planet is the religion of statism and that of money.

>Maybe you were told that as a child and you still act on it.
>When you completely get rid of this, then you will naturally
>be led to alter your moral vision so that it makes more sense.

So now again, in place of facts or reasoning to argue against anarchy with, you make presumptions regarding my childhood, which is again far easier considering there are no facts or logic that will support your case.

>Instead of starting with the moral vision, you will try to understand
>reality and see what is the best course of action given reality.

How about arguing the merits of the issue instead of trying to psychoanalyze why I personally think the way I do based on your assumptions. Morality is a 'first principle'. The foundation of our priorities, that is if we are not sociopaths. The "best" course of actions must be those that adhere to the moral principle. Actions which violate it can in no way be justified. You can't rob one person based on the idea that you are going to feed 5 people with that money. It is still wrong.

>A proper morality is one that leads you to act in a way favorable for you and your communities,

This is far too weak and vague of a definition for morality. Morality has a clear definition of what constitutes it, that does not beg the question of what "favorable" means. The best natural law definition of morality, the boiled down essence of what it actually is, is non-stealing. In Sanskrit there is a word for it: Asteya, which the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali expound upon the true and expansive meaning of. Theft is the true definition of all forms of immorality, from murder, to rape, to fraud, to trespass.

>not one that destroys you and your communities
>"but at least you were moral and that is the only thing that matter".

By what logic do you accuse the philosophy or practice of anarchy of "destroying communities". It is the state which clearly does that.

"Anarchists did not try to carry out genocide against the Armenians in Turkey; they did not deliberately starve millions of Ukranians; they did not create a system of death camps to kill Jews, gypsies, and Slavs in Europe; they did not fire-bomb scores of large German and Japanese cities and drop nuclear bombs on two of them; they did not carry out a 'Great Leap Forward' that killed scores of millions of Chinese; they did not attempt to kill everybody with any appreciable education in Cambodia; they did not launch one aggressive war after another; they did not implement trade sanctions that killed perhaps 500,000 Iraqi children. In debates between anarchists and statists, the burden of proof clearly should rest on those who place their trust in the state. Anarchy's mayhem is wholly conjectural; the state's mayhem is undeniably, factually horrendous." - Robert Higgs

>Again (as I know types like you have a hard time digesting it),
>my point is not that, alas, it is natural, inevitable, and we must
>resign to it. My point is that this is what life is and I embrace it.

I do as well. I also embrace the moral necessity to not participate in and resist the immoral violence of the state, and all aggressive violence of which I am capable of resisting. What you seem to have a hard time digesting is that just because conflict can not be expected to be eliminated, doesn't justify aggressive violence nor excuse us from the duty to not participate in it or support it.

>Finally the fact that you can classify something I say as a known argument
>that you have seen addressed in some book doesn't mean that the argument
>has no merit.

Agreed. My intent was not to dismiss your argument by appeal to authority, but to indicate that it is not anything new, and that the refutation was in what they are saying, the facts and reasoning they present... not just because of who they are or that they had said it. Also I have done my best to address your arguments with facts and logic, and I only reference other authors who make this point because of how much more educated and articulate they are able to make the point than I am. By no means do I mean to imply that my arguments are true *because* they have been written down by someone in a book.

>Try to see past the talking points and the sales leaflet and to look more closely into reality instead.

My viewpoints are not based on some sales leaflet. They are based on the study of literally hundreds of books and documentaries by literally hundreds of different researchers and authors. Statements like this mean very little as they don't bother to address any of the merits of the issue we are discussing... just an attempt to apply a dismissive label "sales leaflet".

>Some of these known arguments may be true even if there
>is a standard answer in the the anarchy FAQ (which I guess
>you are copying and pasting to this forum,

There is no anarchy FAQ from which I copy and paste. I think things out for myself and often disagree with the authors I read on many points, in fact very few I can find whom I agree with everything they say. Again, whether I'm copying and pasting anything from anywhere is not any kind of commentary on the merits of the issue. It brings nothing to the table. At all.

>with some cut and paste accidents in fact). Every ideology has standard answers
>for every objection addressed to it, that doesn't mean every ideology is true and
>refutes all its objections. By reading only authors defending anarchism you just
>reinforce the grip the ideology has on you.

You are making the assumption on how I limit my reading. You don't know what I've read or how I research. What you are accusing me of is called "confirmation bias", and it's something everyone including myself always must be on guard against. Rather than deny that I am at all affected by this, I would again point out that if some claim is false, then it should be refuted with facts and logic. Pointing out that every philosophy has some pat answer to common critique means nothing, both sides of any argument have that. What is necessary to discern truth is to discuss the facts and merits of the issue, not focus on assumptions about how you or I might be flawed in our thinking. If the *idea* or argument is flawed then show that, as that's what is important. I could accuse you of confirmation bias in the same way, and it would be just as presumptuous ad meaningless, which is why I address your argument instead of trying to dismiss it by criticizing you personally.

I would also ask you to refrain from accusing me of confirmation bias until you have presented books or other information that I have dismissed out of hand without taking the time to read, fully understand, and address.
>I was forced to do the military and I am forced to pay taxes and I say YES to it
>all and expend extra effort to contribute in steering it in a good direction. That
>is in my view what decent men do and have always done -- not claiming there
>is another world never seen and this one is bad and must be destroyed.

I understand that the brainwashing is very powerful, but joining military is an immoral act, and this is not because I or anyone else says so, it's a fact.

Having to admit, both to oneself and one's family and peers that one's actions were ultimately immoral or that one's long-held world view is incorrect, or that one played the role of a fool and a dupe in an immoral action, can be very difficult, and often causes cognitive dissonance that severely retards objectivity and rational processing of information.

The submission and acceptance of "authority" which is socially and academically conditioned into individuals from a young age and strongly reinforced by military training has far reaching and distorting psychological effects. As the famous researcher into this, Stanley Milgram noted after his experiments:

"The disappearance of a sense of responsibility is the most far-reaching consequence of submission to authority."

Larken Rose did the most amazing work in his study of the dynamic of the belief in authority and its destructive impact upon society in his book "The Most Dangerous Superstition":

www.mensenrechten.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/the-most-dangerous-superstition-larken-rose-20111.pdf

And of course Mark Passio spells out exactly why order followers are the scourge of the earth:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSqBNGxLiAs
Just invest in gold or ground. Both will still be there when the power fails. Choose gold if you want to carry it around and choose ground when you want it to be difficult to steal.
This is no way of arguing, you need to do a synthesis and reply on key points, not write a 50-page rambling comment reacting to individual sentences.

In any case, I think my previous comment was enough. I don't think you have successfully countered it. What you add about your conception of morality doesn't succeed in showing that it is the only possible conception of morality. As a matter of fact, it is not the only existing one, and it is not mine. Saying that whoever don't share your conception is a piece of shit is not a great argument, and I'm (mildly) surprised you don't see it as you seem keen on spotting fallacies and being the rational type. Of course I didn't say I embrace violence in general nor state violence in general. I said I embrace my political community including what you call its violence, namely the constraints it exerts on individuals (mostly compulsory military service and taxation) which are integral to every political community. What you call brainwashing is called socialization, and it's a normal part of human life, even though it fails with some people like it apparently failed with you. Eusocial insects are entirely devoted to the group; we are not like that but we are partly like that (when we are correctly socialized). Also I am aware that some states have done horrible things. When I asked your country you said it didn't matter because all countries were equally prisons. So producing just one decent country is enough to refute you. Most European states are very decent.

In the end your main problem is that the human tradition doesn't agree with you. You try to enrol it by referencing various religions, but most people identify with their political community (the US being a special case because of the disunion of its people, hence the libertarian prevalence there) and don't think that for it to have some constrains on people is immoral violence and should be stopped at all cost. So you are bound to say that humanity is a piece of shit, which kind of limits your relevance. Humanity, mostly, has not been of anarchist conviction, fortunately for it and despite many prophetic nutcases of your kind in the abrahamic pseudo-tradition, and I think I have given a decent explanation of why and more is not needed.

"The people must fight on behalf of the law as though for the city wall", Heraclitus.
"This is no way of arguing, you need to do a synthesis and reply on key points, not write a 50-page rambling comment reacting to individual sentences."

This.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.