Since a collective is made up of a group of persons or individuals, it implies that collectives are voluntary. If a collective isn't voluntary, furthermore, it can't be considered a collective by the very nature of a collective, which requires all members of the collective to be like-minded (part of the cohesive element of collectivism, which you should be familiar with from a more in-depth, academic understanding of collectivism theory.
Collectivism is, incidentally, a crucial element of the free market; here's a piece on the collectivist nature of the free market, from a libertarian point-of-view:
http://fff.org/.../article/tgif-individualist-collectivism
There are a wealth of works by individualists who claim that collectivism is forced or coerced, but interestingly enough, no collectivism advocates so much as hint at the possibility that collectivism is imposed upon people; additionally, many moderates, and even some individualists (such as in the paper above) recognize that coercion is, at the very least, not necessarily part of collectivism.
One could argue that a collective can be forced, but the vast majority of historical collectives were not forced, and those that were forced or coerced, have always proven historically to be dysfunctional. Coercion is a dysfunctionality of any society, individualistic or collectivistic.
The Soviet Union was dysfunctional and wasteful, had communication and social integration problems, and ultimately fell due to the societal entropy caused by the lack of collective cohesion, due to its coercive nature. Forced collectives never succeed, because they're not healthy or stable.
On the other hand, free association collectives, such as the democratic process, unionization, political parties, the stock market, the free market generally, the U.S. constitution, free software development, user-generated content (such as YouTube, Wikipedia, and social networks like Facebook), etc.-- these are all crystal clear examples of historical collectives that continue to survive and thrive, precisely because they maintain the supporting element of free association, for any collective to remain healthy and stable.
So, perhaps to prevent any further misunderstanding, I will clarify: All healthy and functional collectives are necessarily decentralized and free associating. A collective is unstable, dysfunctional, and corrupt in proportion to its lack of adherence to these two principles, especially the principle of free association.
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Wednesday, February 12, 2014
Is The Fed Really What We Need To End?
The Federal Reserve has clearly devastated the United States currency, with a cumulative inflation of a staggering 2,253.1% since its introduction in 1913. One USD in 1913 would be worth $23.53 in 2014, meaning that in effect, the dollar has since 1913 lost nearly 96% of its value.
On Facebook, a fellow Libertarian made the following claim- a common sentiment shared among anti-Fed conservatives:
"We've been in constant inflation since 1913, with exponential inflation since 1971. The Fed can't stop printing. It will collapse."
I agree with the second claim, but not with the first. we experienced cycles of inflation and deflation in the first few decades following the introduction of the Fed, as the Fed was still following its intended duty of matching the gold standard. As a result, we experienced cycles of deflation from 1920 all the way until 1955:
1920-1921: -10.5%
1921-22: -6.1%
1926-28: -3.4%
1929: 0%
1930: -2.3%
1931: -9%
1932: -9.9%
1933: -5.1%
1938-39: -3.5%
1949: -1.2%
1955: -0.4%
2009: -0.4%
(source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008 )
Our currency stopped deflating entirely after 1955, and as he said, didn't start inflating exponentially until after 1971. This goes to show that the Fed in-and-of itself doesn't devalue currency, the policies of it do. The problem is that the United States economy is being increasingly driven by stocks, which thrive on market growth and increasing consumer prices- and on the rich elite, who thrive on risky investments that they can only afford to make by relying on low-interest debt. It's our economic paradigms, and market dynamics that drive the Fed, not the other way around as anti-Fed activists suggest.
Ending the Fed won't change anything, it will merely create a vacuum of power that will be filled by the most economically-advantaged contender(s). In fact, that's exactly why the Fed was created in the first place. When economic policies failed in the 1800s, and again in the 1900s, large bankers and corporations, especially JP Morgan, took advantage of the depression to gain great wealth and power, and fronted huge loans to the U.S. government, in exchange for high interest rates and political concessions that threatened to compromise the government's power over economic direction.
Incidentally, that's exactly what went wrong with the Fed. The Fed itself has been compromised by bankers and investment firms, despite its intended aim to prevent that. The Fed isn't a bad thing in and of itself any more than democracy is. What's bad is that it has been co-opted for the wealthy elite, at the expense of everyone else.
On Facebook, a fellow Libertarian made the following claim- a common sentiment shared among anti-Fed conservatives:
"We've been in constant inflation since 1913, with exponential inflation since 1971. The Fed can't stop printing. It will collapse."
I agree with the second claim, but not with the first. we experienced cycles of inflation and deflation in the first few decades following the introduction of the Fed, as the Fed was still following its intended duty of matching the gold standard. As a result, we experienced cycles of deflation from 1920 all the way until 1955:
1920-1921: -10.5%
1921-22: -6.1%
1926-28: -3.4%
1929: 0%
1930: -2.3%
1931: -9%
1932: -9.9%
1933: -5.1%
1938-39: -3.5%
1949: -1.2%
1955: -0.4%
2009: -0.4%
(source: http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes-from-1913-to-2008 )
Our currency stopped deflating entirely after 1955, and as he said, didn't start inflating exponentially until after 1971. This goes to show that the Fed in-and-of itself doesn't devalue currency, the policies of it do. The problem is that the United States economy is being increasingly driven by stocks, which thrive on market growth and increasing consumer prices- and on the rich elite, who thrive on risky investments that they can only afford to make by relying on low-interest debt. It's our economic paradigms, and market dynamics that drive the Fed, not the other way around as anti-Fed activists suggest.
Ending the Fed won't change anything, it will merely create a vacuum of power that will be filled by the most economically-advantaged contender(s). In fact, that's exactly why the Fed was created in the first place. When economic policies failed in the 1800s, and again in the 1900s, large bankers and corporations, especially JP Morgan, took advantage of the depression to gain great wealth and power, and fronted huge loans to the U.S. government, in exchange for high interest rates and political concessions that threatened to compromise the government's power over economic direction.
Incidentally, that's exactly what went wrong with the Fed. The Fed itself has been compromised by bankers and investment firms, despite its intended aim to prevent that. The Fed isn't a bad thing in and of itself any more than democracy is. What's bad is that it has been co-opted for the wealthy elite, at the expense of everyone else.
Saturday, January 11, 2014
Fusing Libertarianism with Progressivism - Resolving Misunderstandings
I found out how to overcome the biggest obstacle to an alliance between libertarianism and progressivism: libertarians passionately believe that property rights increase freedom, but in fact that effectively do the opposite. see my thread here for an argument (where I have largely unsuccessfully) attempting to convince the Google+ libertarian crowd that property rights go against freedom.
https://plus.google.com/+TimothyMatias/posts/GEyRtHpJr6W
It just occurred me though, if libertarians realized that property rights limit freedom, they would be much more likely to join progressives, who's weakening of property rights for individuals (physical, monetary, intellectual, etc.) has proven to be the biggest obstacle between the two groups.
It's my mission to make the impossible possible. I understand libertarians very well. I also understand progressives well. I know how much libertarians value property, and that's why I'm making it my priority to show libertarians how they've misunderstood the function of property, in relation to "freedom" and "responsibility".
This means convincing Libertarians that the will of society is a just a projection of the wills of individuals, and convincing Progressives that the wills of individuals reflect the will of society.
See, that wasn't so hard. "Different ways of looking at the same thing"
If I can find a way to make that "click", we'll be one step closer to a fusion of values.
https://plus.google.com/+TimothyMatias/posts/GEyRtHpJr6W
It just occurred me though, if libertarians realized that property rights limit freedom, they would be much more likely to join progressives, who's weakening of property rights for individuals (physical, monetary, intellectual, etc.) has proven to be the biggest obstacle between the two groups.
It's my mission to make the impossible possible. I understand libertarians very well. I also understand progressives well. I know how much libertarians value property, and that's why I'm making it my priority to show libertarians how they've misunderstood the function of property, in relation to "freedom" and "responsibility".
This means convincing Libertarians that the will of society is a just a projection of the wills of individuals, and convincing Progressives that the wills of individuals reflect the will of society.
See, that wasn't so hard. "Different ways of looking at the same thing"
If I can find a way to make that "click", we'll be one step closer to a fusion of values.
Friday, January 10, 2014
The Relationship Between Property Rights and Freedom
As
much as I support private property rights as a necessary right in
modern-day societies, it isn't something that can be justifiably
promoted in the name of "liberty". Private property isn't a part of
freedom, nor is it necessarily compatible with freedom. Owning property
limits who can use it, how people can use it, etc., and puts conditions
on its use. By definition, private property is a barrier to freedom, as it restricts the use property to the conditions imposed on it by the legal owners.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
This isn't to say that private property can't be a vehicle of *partial* freedom. Sometimes it's necessary to restrict some freedoms (such as the free use of property, via private property) to ensure other freedoms (such as the individual guarantee of freedom to do what they like with their property, and protection against those who would infringe on that freedom).
In an ideal, truly free society, private property would not be necessary, as the people would freely share all their land. resources, ideas, commodities, etc. with each other, and everyone would be more prosperous, free, and innovative as a result. Private property cannot be part of any *truly* free society, as (for reasons I documented above) it is a barrier to the free use by non-owners. Just keep that in mind: Private property is necessary for a conditional freedom that emphasizes the rights of individuals, but is not by any means compatible with unconditional freedom.
Free Market Vs. Capitalism: Clearing up Some Confusion
It seems there's a lot of confusion about the relationship between the "free market" and "capitalism", so I'd like to clear things up:
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
technically the "free market" is a form of capitalism. The definition of capitalism is rather broad:
"an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state."
According to this definition, most economic systems that are not state-controlled are capitalistic.
The free market, in its most pure and idealistic form, is what we refer to today as "the black market", or alternatively, "the underground economy". This is the most decentralized form of capitalism.
Corporatism is most centralized form of capitalism. It is essentially the same thing as socialism, only the states are substituted for corporations, government agencies for subsidiaries, bureaucrats for CEOs, and voters for shareholders.
In an ideal, free society, the free market would be the de facto form of capitalism, but such free trade has been so suppressed that it can only thrive underground. And incidentally, it has thrived greatly, at least on a global level, despite (or rather, because of) government oppression and intervention in the economy).
So when I say capitalism is completely different from the free market, this is what I mean: The capitalism in place today, around the world, is completely different from free market capitalism- it is in fact its polar opposite. And additionally, the polar opposite of Socialism is Anarchism, which goes to show that the advantages of capitalism may not be advantages at all. What brings us prosperity isn't capitalism, it's freedom!
Saturday, November 30, 2013
The Economist's Fallacious FUD About Bitcoin
This article about Bitcoin, while knowledgeable and well-written, is a
classic example of how even the experts can misunderstand how Bitcoin
functions:
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590766-virtual-currency-it-mathematically-elegant-increasingly-popular-and-highly
No, Bitcoin is not unprofitable to mine, it is fairly profitable, if you know what you're doing.
No, Bitcoin's open source nature and the software's ability to be easily modified democratically does not make it fragile, it makes it remarkably strong and resilient, just like any other governing system of such a nature.
No, Bitcoin would not have difficulty maintaining nodes once the block rewards become negligible, the transaction fees have already been implemented, and the plans to scale the transaction fees to account for diminishing rewards has already been established.
No, decentralization and a lack of reliance on government or bank authorities does not make Bitcoin "untrustworthy" or "fictional", it makes Bitcoin more democratic, more trustworthy (since it is almost purely logical, and does not depend on the highly faulty and plutocratic exchange of power imposed by governments and banks), and far more resilient than any other existing financial system in place, particularly since Bitcoin has no single points of failure, unlike traditional financial institutions and currency authorities.
No, Bitcoin is not particularly vulnerable to security. Exchanges and wallets are hacked, not Bitcoin, and that is the fault of the users and the exchanges, not the Bitcoin software. and even if the software was at fault, it can be easily (within minutes, often) be patched and secured, and is guaranteed to be so due to the active Bitcoin community and the open-source nature of the product. So overall, Bitcoin is far more secure than any conventional currency could ever be.
No, Bitcoin is not suffering from its several gigabyte blockchain of transactions. The average hard drive size is growing exponentially, and the current Bitcoin blockchain is less than 12 GB. that's not even half a single layer Blu-ray of data. to suggest that this is a massive, unmanageable amount is just plain asinine!
No, the "arms race" of Bitcoin ASICS is not destabilizing the currency or interfering with its viability. On the contrary, it vastly increases the network's total hashing power, making it exponentially more secure and protected against external threats.
No, Bitcoin transaction times and sizes cannot tell you who made the transactions, even if you "follow the money". The reason Silk Road's CEO and higher level users got caught, wasn't because of the transactions being analyzed, it was because they bragged at length about their exploits, used real names for registration, and made a myriad of other mistakes.
Tell me +The Economist, is you can follow the Bitcoin money to discover the originator of Bitcoin transactions, then (excuse my french) why the fuck hasn't anyone discovered the identity(s) of the single largest Bitcoin owner, and the one who mined the first (genesis) block? Satoshi Nakamoto, despite numerous high profile attempts, remains unknown after all this time, even though he has a bigger Bitcoin footprint than anyone. It's all guesswork, plain and simple. This supposed "follow the money", while useful for formulating educated guesses, is useless for discovering any Bitcoin user's identity, without other, more concrete and transparent sources of information. Ultimately, the ledger of transactions serves no more than as a collection of "hints", the vast majority of which are far too vague to provide any value to investigators.
All and all, while the writers of this article obviously did their homework enough to be knowledgeable about Bitcoin, they obviously haven't analyzed their research enough to really understand Bitcoin, only enough to post FUD and misinformation that can convince the less initiated. This goes to show that even established and reputable journalism firms like the Economist can be very, very wrong!
http://www.economist.com/news/technology-quarterly/21590766-virtual-currency-it-mathematically-elegant-increasingly-popular-and-highly
No, Bitcoin is not unprofitable to mine, it is fairly profitable, if you know what you're doing.
No, Bitcoin's open source nature and the software's ability to be easily modified democratically does not make it fragile, it makes it remarkably strong and resilient, just like any other governing system of such a nature.
No, Bitcoin would not have difficulty maintaining nodes once the block rewards become negligible, the transaction fees have already been implemented, and the plans to scale the transaction fees to account for diminishing rewards has already been established.
No, decentralization and a lack of reliance on government or bank authorities does not make Bitcoin "untrustworthy" or "fictional", it makes Bitcoin more democratic, more trustworthy (since it is almost purely logical, and does not depend on the highly faulty and plutocratic exchange of power imposed by governments and banks), and far more resilient than any other existing financial system in place, particularly since Bitcoin has no single points of failure, unlike traditional financial institutions and currency authorities.
No, Bitcoin is not particularly vulnerable to security. Exchanges and wallets are hacked, not Bitcoin, and that is the fault of the users and the exchanges, not the Bitcoin software. and even if the software was at fault, it can be easily (within minutes, often) be patched and secured, and is guaranteed to be so due to the active Bitcoin community and the open-source nature of the product. So overall, Bitcoin is far more secure than any conventional currency could ever be.
No, Bitcoin is not suffering from its several gigabyte blockchain of transactions. The average hard drive size is growing exponentially, and the current Bitcoin blockchain is less than 12 GB. that's not even half a single layer Blu-ray of data. to suggest that this is a massive, unmanageable amount is just plain asinine!
No, the "arms race" of Bitcoin ASICS is not destabilizing the currency or interfering with its viability. On the contrary, it vastly increases the network's total hashing power, making it exponentially more secure and protected against external threats.
No, Bitcoin transaction times and sizes cannot tell you who made the transactions, even if you "follow the money". The reason Silk Road's CEO and higher level users got caught, wasn't because of the transactions being analyzed, it was because they bragged at length about their exploits, used real names for registration, and made a myriad of other mistakes.
Tell me +The Economist, is you can follow the Bitcoin money to discover the originator of Bitcoin transactions, then (excuse my french) why the fuck hasn't anyone discovered the identity(s) of the single largest Bitcoin owner, and the one who mined the first (genesis) block? Satoshi Nakamoto, despite numerous high profile attempts, remains unknown after all this time, even though he has a bigger Bitcoin footprint than anyone. It's all guesswork, plain and simple. This supposed "follow the money", while useful for formulating educated guesses, is useless for discovering any Bitcoin user's identity, without other, more concrete and transparent sources of information. Ultimately, the ledger of transactions serves no more than as a collection of "hints", the vast majority of which are far too vague to provide any value to investigators.
All and all, while the writers of this article obviously did their homework enough to be knowledgeable about Bitcoin, they obviously haven't analyzed their research enough to really understand Bitcoin, only enough to post FUD and misinformation that can convince the less initiated. This goes to show that even established and reputable journalism firms like the Economist can be very, very wrong!
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
What Is Game Theory?
While I'm still a bit new to the concept of Game Theory, the following is my understanding of Game Theory, in the context of economics. Hopefully this will help newcomers to the subject develop a better understanding of it ;)
Some background: I have been tracking the stock market for several years, but never had the capital to invest in it. If I did, I would have been able to retire from Google stock by now
Some background: I have been tracking the stock market for several years, but never had the capital to invest in it. If I did, I would have been able to retire from Google stock by now
because every prediction I made about the price of Google stock for the past 5 years has been correct
I have in the past 5 years set 7 price targets for them, and every single price target, they have reached when I said they would. I am extremely good at analysis and stock prediction, evaluating
financial variables. if I wanted, I could easily become a stock analyst.
----
Contrary to appearances, The discipline of stock analysis is not actually economic fortune telling, though many of the less prodigious economist may well be employing a high degree of fortune telling to compensate for their intellectual deficiencies. But when done correctly, the analysis of stocks, and of the economy generally, involves statistical evaluations based on information tracking. While perhaps to the average person this amounts to an educated guess,those more intimately familiar with the variables involved are able to consistently make accurate predictions.
Part of why I personally don't have the money to invest into companies that I have accurately determined to be good investments, is because I have no interest in money. I only care about the analysis and valuation of entities, and making reliable predictions based on my analysis. For example, I know for a fact that Bitcoin will go up a lot in price. because even under the most pessimistic of economic projections, it will be profitable to mine, and at the current price, even to invest in.
This is exactly how game theory works. It's called game theory because every game has rules and variables that determine the outcome, and that model can be applied to every science and discipline that relies on knowledge of the rules, protocols, and variables of a system to succeed. Economies can only function if there is a consistency of protocols and rules of trade, reliable patterns for the prices of commodities and currencies, and variables that can be consistently tracked and predicted to a relatively high degree of precision. Those who can effectively utilize game theory to accurately determine lucrative economic investments, they are the gurus of the economic world.
----
Contrary to appearances, The discipline of stock analysis is not actually economic fortune telling, though many of the less prodigious economist may well be employing a high degree of fortune telling to compensate for their intellectual deficiencies. But when done correctly, the analysis of stocks, and of the economy generally, involves statistical evaluations based on information tracking. While perhaps to the average person this amounts to an educated guess,those more intimately familiar with the variables involved are able to consistently make accurate predictions.
Part of why I personally don't have the money to invest into companies that I have accurately determined to be good investments, is because I have no interest in money. I only care about the analysis and valuation of entities, and making reliable predictions based on my analysis. For example, I know for a fact that Bitcoin will go up a lot in price. because even under the most pessimistic of economic projections, it will be profitable to mine, and at the current price, even to invest in.
This is exactly how game theory works. It's called game theory because every game has rules and variables that determine the outcome, and that model can be applied to every science and discipline that relies on knowledge of the rules, protocols, and variables of a system to succeed. Economies can only function if there is a consistency of protocols and rules of trade, reliable patterns for the prices of commodities and currencies, and variables that can be consistently tracked and predicted to a relatively high degree of precision. Those who can effectively utilize game theory to accurately determine lucrative economic investments, they are the gurus of the economic world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)