[549362-30499]

There's something pretty rich about asking the government to intervene in a project described as:

Tezos is a new decentralized blockchain that governs itself by establishing a true digital commonwealth.

Especially one that, according to your links at least, has been defrauded by its radical libertarian and Ayn Rand acolyte leader. Is this not the free market merely deciding that the people who donated have poor judgement?

[stale2002]

You have interpreted libertarian philosophy incorrectly.

Libertarians are absolutely in favor of using court systems to sue people for fraud.

The belief in contract enforcement, and stopping fraud is a defining feature of libertarians.

[jnbiche]

For some reason you're getting downvoted, but clearly people have some misconceptions about libertarianism, perhaps confusing it with anarcho-capitalism.

I'd agree that contract enforcement (including to combat fraud) along with the non-aggression principle, are the primary defining principles of libertarianism, regardless of the particular school or wing of libertarianism in discussion.

[em3rgent0rdr]

Even anarcho capitalists may support a p2p court system to combat fraud. Anarcho-Capitalism does not mean lawlessness and chaos.

[Trundle]

Libertarians are not anarchists. Otherwise you'd just be talking about anarchists...

[EGreg]

May libertarians ARE anarchists. Anarcho-capitalists also call themselves libertarians and voluntarists. Free Talk Live, the most popular libertarian radio station has hosts that are nearly all AnCaps who care about the NAP more than outcomes, and so forth.

And in a libertarian Utopia, it is truly Caveat Emptor - let the buyer beware! Personal responsibility, no nanny governments!

[em3rgent0rdr]

Even in libertopia, there may be independent voluntary consumer protection organizations (not funded or enforced by the state) which sellers and buyers might associate with or otherwise utilize to ensure positive trades.

[TheCoelacanth]

Anarcho-capitalists aren't anarchists. It is self contradictory to have a society that is controlled by capital owners (capitalism) and one that is controlled by no one (anarchism).

[wavefunction]

And yet we find ourselves talking about Libertarians while discussing anarchies ;)

[superquest]

> a true digital commonwealth.

That is hysterical.

[hal9000xp]

Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money.

Gevers is fake libertarian, he is con-man who just made fake organizations to make visibility of high reputation. There is absolutely nothing from libertarianism or Ayn Rand philosophy in his actions. In fact, Ayn Rand is Atlas Shrugged specifically mention about fraudulent people.

I see your sarcasm about:

> Tezos is a new decentralized blockchain that governs itself by establishing a true digital commonwealth.

They didn't launch project yet. Once they launch project, it will be exactly like that and it doesn't matter what's happen with foundation. But for now, the foundation cut off any funding of the project in critical development stage.

Yes, contributors are responsible to do their due diligence.

About asking government to intervene in order to remove Gevers. In some sense, it's government (more precisely the swiss law) who protect Gevers position.

[coldtea]

>Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money.

No, parent only assumes that libertarians/Ayn Rand supporters shouldn't go to the government to cry.

>Gevers is fake libertarian, he is con-man who just made fake organizations to make visibility of high reputation. There is absolutely nothing from libertarianism or Ayn Rand philosophy in his actions.

Seems to me like a good case of a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it, lesser mortals and common good be damned. What's more Ayn Randish?

[roenxi]

Ayn Rand was very much about following through with commitments. If Gevers has a long track record of failed ventures because he aimed higher than he was capable of achieving then he is indeed a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it in the fine Randian style.

If he is a con-man who said he is going to do something then took the money and ran without putting in a serious effort, he isn't an example of her philosophy.

Rand accepted people being selfish because in practice selfishness has been proven no barrier to creating prosperity for everyone. She didn't accept dishonesty.

[EGreg]

I never understood this argument from objectivists.

If you use cold hard logic and take Ayn Rand at her word, then someone can totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it.

After all, the "as befits a rational being" is the only qualifier and that's so vague as to be a "no true scotsman" argument making her whole praise of selfishness moot. If selfishness is an amazing thing except when she doesn't like it, then her whole philosophy isn't objectivism at all, but back to the "subjective whims" and pronouncements of "mystics" she so derides.

You can't have it both ways. If altruism is criticized and selfishness is praised, then it can be perfectly rational for a person to screw others over as long as they know they won't personally get in trouble. I never got a good response from Objectivists about this.

[roenxi]

If it helps; I agree with your assessment that someone could totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it. That is pretty much at the core of the argument.

I recall a case in Australia where someone mailed seniors saying 'you own shares valued at $X. I will buy them off you for half that. Please respond' and made a substantial profit from the scheme. Objectivism accepts that as a moral situation.

I can't see any elements of the No True Scotsman fallacy here however hard I look - the philosophy is that when someone is truthful and follows through with what they say they will do then they are being moral. There isn't even an objection to people being altruistic; the only objection is forced altruism.

It isn't a friendly philosophy but it is quite clear as far as moralities go. Nothing escapes from shades of grey.

[EGreg]

Okay cool. So no matter who the mark is (an elderly person, or a child) you can just take them for a ride if you're honest and she finds that moral. Btw in your example, in order to make a profit the shares must have been worth more than $2X in reality so the person lied and they didn't check the lie.

But what part of her philosophy says you must be honest in everything? Selfishness may entail lying, especially in sales (if you don't at the least creatively omit things, someone else who does will eat your lunch).

In addition, if you didn't promise anything, you can go ahead an just steal or screw everyone as long as you don't get caught. Check out example #1 and #2 and tell me where Ayn Rand's theory says you can't do that:

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20Got%20Mi...

[coldtea]

>Ayn Rand was very much about following through with commitments.

Well, he had a commitments to himself and he followed through. What he promised to others was just BS, and since being selfish is OK, I don't see what's non-Randish about it.

[36bydesign]

Reminds me of my mormon days: if things turn out well, it was because of God/righteousnsss. When things turned out bad, it was because of the devil.

100% postdictive. 0% predictive.

[toyg]

Also known as a True Scotsman.