Quote from: Timo Y on August 22, 2014, 10:22:11 AM

Libertarianism is not incompatible with socialism. It is only incompatible with coercive socialism.

One of core values of socialism is that the rich have a moral obligation to redistribute some of their wealth to the poor. However, this redistribution doesn't have to happen by coercive means.

There are also non-coercive ways of achieving this: ostracism, shaming, persuasion, education, prizes, fame, social norms, "whuffie", etc

The crypto economy has the potential to formalize and automate these redistribution mechanisms (see Vitalik Buterin's SocialCoin idea), making them so effective that coercive, tax-based redistribution is no longer necessary.

And what is the difference between non-coercive wealth redistribution and private charities?
I don't really see the point in implementing socialism if it's not coercive.

Why the need to call it socialism then? It's basically anarchy since you are allowed to do what you want with your wealth.

Quote from: Beliathon on August 22, 2014, 04:21:41 PM

Quote from: cuddaloreappu on August 22, 2014, 04:14:56 PM

can you tell me the differences between libertarianism and objectivism

I can. American right-wing propaganda machine redefined the word "libertarian" for clueless Americans, to suit their agenda.

Which is why the word "libertarian" only means what you think it means in America, and only to a small subset of heavily indoctrinated, mostly young and white, mostly males.

By the way, learn about your beloved Ayn Rand.

It seems like you have something against white young male Americans. Doesn't that go against your whole "world citizen" philosophy?
I could care less what race, gender and nationality a person has and so should you.