But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.
Advertisement
by Norstal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:26 pm
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Ripoll » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:27 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Ripoll wrote:
And it wasn't all that great when it was used. It doesn't neccessarily hjave to be Government to be fiat, it can be anything taking the place of Government as well or any form of law or regulation.
A gold standard for essence, would still be fiat currency. For as long as civilization has exited, fiat currency has existed.
So in other words, you think we should return to a barter system?
The gold standard is not fiat. (S)he said nothing of the barter system.
Forbes wrote:In both cases, what makes Tide detergent, or cigarettes, or the US dollar, or Bitcoin, or whatever, a currency, is simply common agreement that these an item of currency is valuable. What makes it possible to buy drugs with Tide is not because Tide is useful as a detergent. It’s because drug dealers and users have agreed that it is currency.
This is, of course, equally true of gold. Gold’s uses in industry are marginal to its appeal. What makes gold valuable is that we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable.
Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.
by United Russian Soviet States » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:27 pm
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:27 pm
Ripoll wrote:Conglomerate of Iron wrote:People have every right to use whatever they want as currency.
How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.
by Sibirsky » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:28 pm
Ripoll wrote:Conglomerate of Iron wrote:Peak oil will be a slow increase in oil prices, maiking it more economically viable to use green energy.
If you actually research peak oil, you will see that it is a bell curve: prices slowly increase.
So again, waiting for decades after it is pretty much irreversible to begin to do anything and just allow the market to naturally correct itself. Or we can do what we do now and incentivize companies to go green, and give tax breaks to companies that practice sustainability and tax carbon footprints.
by Natapoc » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:28 pm
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:29 pm
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:30 pm
United Russian Soviet States wrote:There is too much difference between the two types of anarchists.
by Sibirsky » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:30 pm
Ripoll wrote:Conglomerate of Iron wrote:People have every right to use whatever they want as currency.
How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.
by Norstal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:31 pm
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Ripoll » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:31 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Ripoll wrote:1) so your solution is we will fix the environment after we destroy it? Nah, I think a tax on carbon footprints and some mandatory form of environmental review is a better idea.
2) Smoking violates the health of potential offspring and they never had a say on your decision to poison them.
3) No, you do not have the right to reintroduce small pox into society because "mah bodily sovereignty is at risk for taking harmless medicine thatwill only protect me and keep our society functional and disease free"
1. That's not what (s)he said.
Taxes work well, in making us worse off.
2. What the fuck are you talking about? "Potential offspring" are just that. Potential. They are not real and do not get to restrict anyone else's rights. If/when (s)he decides to have children it would be a good idea to stop smoking, but still none of your fucking business.
3. You ok? You sound like you need help. You, the government or anyone else has no right to force anything into his or her body. Get over it.
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:32 pm
Natapoc wrote:Norstal wrote:But you just said I have the right to use whatever I want as currency. Now suddenly I have problem? Wow, this is sounding like fascism.
Rocks are actually very valuable currency when used appropriately...
With proper force and aim one can "barter" for whatever one wants with a rock quite easily. You could say that rocks are a mechanism of exchange.
by Norstal » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:32 pm
Toronto Sun wrote:Best poster ever. ★★★★★
New York Times wrote:No one can beat him in debates. 5/5.
IGN wrote:Literally the best game I've ever played. 10/10
NSG Public wrote:What a fucking douchebag.
by Sibirsky » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:33 pm
by Atlanticatia » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:34 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Atlanticatia wrote:
When you raise taxes on cigarettes, people smoke less.
When you place a tax on carbon and raise it progressively, companies pollute less carbon.
Less smoking, less pollution, what's not to like?
When you raise taxes on cigarettes, smokers spend more on cigarettes and that leaves them less money for everything else. They are worse off, and so are the businesses that they had to curb spending on, to pay for the more expensive cigarettes.
They produce less carbon by producing less goods.
by Shilya » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:35 pm
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:35 pm
by Ripoll » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:35 pm
Sibirsky wrote:Ripoll wrote:
So again, waiting for decades after it is pretty much irreversible to begin to do anything and just allow the market to naturally correct itself. Or we can do what we do now and incentivize companies to go green, and give tax breaks to companies that practice sustainability and tax carbon footprints.
Who said anything about waiting for decades?
Businessmen and women are not stupid, as much as you claim them to be, and would work on technologies ahead of time because that would make them money.
by Natapoc » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:37 pm
Conglomerate of Iron wrote:Natapoc wrote:
Rocks are actually very valuable currency when used appropriately...
With proper force and aim one can "barter" for whatever one wants with a rock quite easily. You could say that rocks are a mechanism of exchange.
That would be taking of personal property through violence.
Then the person would shoot or taze you.
by Ripoll » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:37 pm
Conglomerate of Iron wrote:Ripoll wrote:
How would corporations even function then? What right do cashiers have to barter with their company's retail products? Barter is an awful system and this will severely lower demand, hurt business, and cause painful deflationary cycles.
Certain goods are universally useful.
I have gone over this. Ammunition, gold, silver, bitcoin, alcohol, drugs, gasoline, etc.
The business can set certain prices they want. You really dont get that people work well woth freedom do you?
by Sibirsky » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:38 pm
Ripoll wrote:Sibirsky wrote:
The gold standard is not fiat. (S)he said nothing of the barter system.Forbes wrote:In both cases, what makes Tide detergent, or cigarettes, or the US dollar, or Bitcoin, or whatever, a currency, is simply common agreement that these an item of currency is valuable. What makes it possible to buy drugs with Tide is not because Tide is useful as a detergent. It’s because drug dealers and users have agreed that it is currency.
This is, of course, equally true of gold. Gold’s uses in industry are marginal to its appeal. What makes gold valuable is that we’ve all agreed since time immemorial that it’s valuable.
Switching to a gold-backed currency regime does not mean switching away from fiat currency, it means switching to a fiat currency system where the money supply is linked to a commodity.
Wikipedia wrote:Fiat money is currency which derives its value from government regulation or law. The term derives from the Latin fiat ("let it be done", "it shall be").[1] It differs from commodity money and representative money. Commodity money is based on a good, often a precious metal such as gold or silver, which has uses other than as a medium of exchange, while representative money is a claim on the commodity rather than the actual good.[2][3][4]
The first use of fiat money was recorded in China around 1000 AD. Since then, it has been used continuously by various countries, concurrently with commodity currencies.
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:38 pm
Shilya wrote:The fundamental problem I see is land ownership and usage rights.
Land - in both quality and quantity - is definitly limited, and for quite a lot of people in the past it has been important enough to wage wars over. So, it's sort of a critical thing, and land ownership in the absence of government essentially makes you the government, seeing how people on your property have to follow your rules or leave. So, AnCap isn't really anarchistic, it's just an extreme fragmentation into many small states.
Assuming that AnCom doesn't permit private land ownership - why would it - that means it has to somehow work out land usage rights, but that gives it at least a shot at abolishing the state. Still, once a commune forms and, to restrict too extreme behaviours starts setting up rules for its members to follow (and all human societies have rules, for good reason), the commune is basically its own, fully democratic state again, bringing us back to the problem of increasing state power. Specialization is efficient, and when it comes to the management of societies, specialization means governments.
So, the main difference that makes Ancap and Ancom so hard to work together is that one is feudalist and the other democratic in nature, two clashing ideologies.
And that's why I'm not an anarchist.
by Conglomerate of Iron » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:40 pm
Natapoc wrote:Conglomerate of Iron wrote:That would be taking of personal property through violence.
Then the person would shoot or taze you.
Property is violence obfuscated by illusions of choice and imagined freedom. Those with property use it to enslave those without and call it "voluntary". We have millions of people today "voluntary" starving and billions living in poverty in service to those illusions.
by Shilya » Sun Feb 08, 2015 8:41 pm
Conglomerate of Iron wrote:You do realize that homesteading determines property ownership in Ancapistan?
If I built that house or purchasrd it, I own it. If I grew crops on that land, I own it.
In this way, one owns the land they use and the goods they produce.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, Bovad, HISPIDA, Homalia, Kerwa, Kubra, La Xinga, Likhinia, Neanderthaland, Neo-Hermitius, Neu California, Port Carverton, Saiwana, Sorastan, Tarsonis, The Farimur Terh, Tiami, Trollgaard, Tungstan, Uiiop, Zurkerx
Advertisement