> If by that you mean a democratic government (violent extortionate power) empowered to stabilise the currency via a variety of means, including supply inflation (engaged in parasitism of the monetary base)...
It's funny how many different ways there are to paint over the underlying unpleasant reality of the situation with pretty words designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the enterprise. It's almost like there's an uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion.
No, what's funny is how differently people see the world.
You see a violent extortionate power, I see a cooperative, democratic government. You see parasitism of the monetary base, I see an important stabilising role in the common currency that keeps the economy ticking.
These are not words I use to gloss over "the underlying unpleasant reality", there is no "uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion". We genuinely have different views on these things.
This is one of the things I find so fascinating (and childish) about internet libertarians and objectivists - they assume that everyone that doesn't agree with them is either actively evil, totally deluded, or just hasn't been exposed to their self-evidently correct way of thinking yet.
I bet it never occurs to you that other people think about the very same things you do but can come to completely different conclusions?
No, as a matter of fact it simply never occurred to me that you might simply disagree thereby changing the underlying nature of reality in so doing.
But I suppose I am not one for the acceptance that things are only what we label them with. If no differences can be iterated between one thing with a pretty label, say a democratic government for argument's sake, and another thing with an ugly label, say an organised crime ring with a byzantine structure designed to convey the perception of community support but which retains the core underlying features of being impossible not to participate in under threat of violence, parasitic and corrupt even by it's own rules; it just never occurred to me someone might truly be naive enough to honestly accept that the labels alone change the nature of the underlying labelled things.
It's a fine trick if you can find enough suckers to pull it off I suppose.
Of course, because only your views represent the "underlying nature of reality", and anyone with a more positive view of collective government is necessarily blinded by labels. And it's so obvious that when it comes to human affairs, particularly those of a social/governmental nature, that there is one single empirical truth. Of course! How could I be so stupid?
I don't think that most western nations do have a government that could be described as an organised crime ring. I don't think you can cite this as an empirical fact. In fact I think that all of the words you used there are overly-emotional negative labels you use to reinforce your own belief that democratic government is necessarily evil, a view I don't subscribe to.
The labels you or I use to describe the institution in question are entirely irrelevant, it is the characteristics which those institutions have which dictate their actual material nature. Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so.
If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body you would do far better pointing to examples of how one might choose not to participate in the structure of the state without being subject to it's violent sanction. That you can't do this is precisely why the pretty labels you plaster it with are utterly unconvincing to anyone unswayed by simplistic feelgood propaganda.
"Responding to my iteration of the characteristics that a government shares with an organised crime syndicate with "I don't think so" is exactly as effective as trying to tell me a marsupial is not a mammal despite its characteristics because you don't think so."
No, because we can point at a marsupial and agree on the characteristics. You and I do not agree on the characteristics of government or currency. --edit-- In fact many of the 'characteristics' you list are emotional labels as far as I can see. Yet you continue to insist that they are part of an 'underlying reality'. I disagree.
"If you hope to convince me that the state is not an intrinsically violent and extortionate body"
I don't hope to convince you of that, it's clearly central to your outlook on life. I only hope to convince you that not everyone sees it that way, and that not everyone that doesn't see it that way thinks the way they do because of ignorance.
They are not emotional labels, they are simply facts.
Government is by definition;
Violent; the state claims a monopoly on violence and employs the use of violence when forcing compliance with its edicts.
Parasitic; the state functions by siphoning productivity from a captive populace and channelling it into the activities of the state such as bureaucracy, war and the continued maintenance and expansion of the state and its power. In the absence of a productive body there can be no state as there is nothing for the state to parasite from.
Extortionate; the state obtains money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion.
Now you can deny these all you like, but the simple fact remains that all states share the above characteristics. It's not a matter of opinion or viewpoint, those are simple facts. Disagreeing with them does in fact make you ignorant to the reality of the situation as it stands regardless of how uncomfortable that might make you feel.
If you consider government to be formed of the people, rather than an external entity, then your view of these things changes.
We, the people, reserve the use of violence to those we collectively appoint to help run our society. This is necessary in order to protect the rights we grant ourselves. How would you propose to protect what you see as your property rights without violence? Oh that's right, it's only violence when other people do it, not when you do it.
We, the people, impose taxes (extortion! LOL) in order to provide collective services we all rely on.
And I disagree both that democratic government is parasitic or that expansion of the state and state power are necessarily the aims of all democratic governments.
So I absolutely can and do disagree that all states have those characteristics, that your ideal stateless existence is free of them or that all of these things are necessarily negative. Sorry. It really is a matter of opinion and viewpoint.
Sorry. It's far from perfect, but it's better than any other system I can think of and it's sure as hell better than a libertarian free-for-all which (IMHO) would devolve into feudalism and indentured servitude in no time.
Difference of opinion again you see.
--edit-- and I hope you enjoy your crypto-currencies. I also like them, I love crypto and am often amazed at what can be done with it. I just don't think that some of the features of BTC (particularly the fixed supply) are as awesome as some others seem to, nor do I find it important for currency to be free of central control, because I consider it a social utility rather than an absolute possession.
Tyranny vs democracy wasn't my point, my point was that instead of accepting the negatives in the system, you rationalise them away by saying it's okay when it's your team behaving this way. History has a way of making this habit look foolish in the long run.
If crypto currencies prevail, we will see if your fears or my hopes end up justified. I am just happy it's finally possible.
Again, I don't think these characteristics you list are unquestionably present or that they are unquestionably absolute negatives. From my perspective you use emotionally loaded language to try and paint a picture that fits in with your worldview.
It's not 'my team vs your team'. It's that I genuinely don't see cooperative government or managed currencies as evil (quite the opposite), and you do.
I don't this his language was emotional at all.
I don't want my money to be spent in certain ways.
I like voluntarism and of course I would try to improve the situation around my area instead of financing war, prisons and luxury for the corrupted.
violent, parasitic, corrupt, extortionate, coercion, organised crime ring... these aren't emotionally loaded terms to you?
Again, different people have different attitudes. I'm not saying his (or your) view of the world is invalid. I'm saying that acting like it is the only possible rational or objective view on the world, and using heavily loaded words and a lot of absolute pronouncements, is a shortcoming I've seen in many internet libertarians.
--edit-- along with an assumption that anyone disagreeing with them just doesn't understand the arguments (I do), or is being wilfully ignorant (I'm not)
You keep pretending that those words don't actually apply, even though when I nailed you down on the definitions, you acknowledged it, you just said it was OK because the behaviour is acceptable when it's your team that's doing it.
If that excuse works for you, that's fine, but it doesn't negate the fact that the labels still accurately apply, you've just tried to justify them.
Oh for god's sake. No I didn't. Read the thread back. I do not agree that tax and extortion are equivalent, neither do I agree that government is by nature parasitic, nor that its aims are necessarily expansionist. These are emotionally coloured labels and presume that your worldview is absolutely correct.
I do agree (and said as much) that we delegate the use of violence to our representatives, but I'd quite like to know how libertarians would enforce property rights without violence, and why that's just AOK but not allowed for any other right we grant ourselves. This is where you're just as guilty of allowing 'your team' to get away with something.
--edit-- anyway, I'm done here, I'm pretty sure we've demonstrated that you're intolerant of other worldviews
Playing games with labels whilst refusing to accept the essential characteristics of the underlying subject doesn't make you correct.
It's not taxation, it's extortion.
It's not quantitative easing, it's debasement.
It's not enhanced interrogation, it's fucking torture.
It's not pre-emptive targeted killing, it's assassination.
It's not lobbying, it's bribery.
Putting your thugs in uniforms does not make them other than thugs. It doesn't matter which of these labels you accept, the description does not modify the reality. The map is not the territory.
I am sick to death of statist word game bullshit and yes, I will not silently take it while being told once again that war is peace, freedom is slavery and ignorance is strength.
It's funny how many different ways there are to paint over the underlying unpleasant reality of the situation with pretty words designed to lend a veneer of legitimacy to the enterprise. It's almost like there's an uncomfortable underlying truth that many people would prefer you would not state in such a blunt fashion.