Originally Posted by xerx
It's actually based on reciprocal altruism. Quid pro quo, but not necessarily with an immediate compensation.
It should be noted that this concept is based on the notion that nobody should own any means of production privately. These are socialized (instead of being nationalized) and managed by collectives consisting of the involved workers.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
took the longer version. kinda getting tired, not sure how much thought or if i put too much thought into some of them. fuck the 5 weighted answers limit.
i don't care whether or not they satisfy the same definition. to the average person living his life: market implies private interest, non-market implies community interest.
Funneh how percentages changed immediately.
newsflash: i'm the average person, and so are you
i agree (see my post after that), but with one caveat: reciprocal altruism can imply that both parties always benefit. that's not necessarily the case; throwing your lot in with other people may make you lose out
Yeah, but as you already said: it's not mandatory. For instance, if you feel that you'd be better off keeping "your" part of the farmland (measured by the amount of land you can work yourself), you can do that. This was a common practice among the Spanish farmers before the civil war started.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Took the longer version and got the same.
Force is part of every real or realizable social order. What distinguishes authoritarianism is unrestricted power that feels entitled to thwart opposition. Democracy is all about restriction of power and facilitation and protection of opposition.
this is an example of what i was talking about.
the assumption that people make exchanges on perceived individual benefit, rational expectations, homo economicus, etc. is a market-oriented mindset.
a communitarian mindset could predicate itself on sacrifice regardless of the short or long-term consequences to the individual. a communitarian might make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure the survival of others.
this difference in "spirit" stands out in the way these social structures affect daily life even though both are predicated on individual choice.
i know; i was getting at something different: that people don't necessarily make a cost-benefit analysis when entering into these binding relationships. ex: a soldier who throws himself on a grenade does it out of altruism, not out of expected returns on investment.
And what does the community do when someone doesn't want to 'give' xerx?
You're right, but if we're going down that route, then a state-controlled economy is also a market economy because people can be satisfied to live in it. What if people voluntarily chose to stay there instead of moving? Isn't that a free market decision?
Most people do because:
- they like a strong state
- they haven't heard of alternatives
- they're apathetic; they're too lazy to question the system
- whatever else.
They're subjectively happier following the path of least resistance. ( I am ! I want an easy life )
Subjectivity is tricky because it can be absolute "i want this" or it can be relative "this is a better deal than this", or any strange combination of things - like a free-market of the mind.
p.s. we're all splitting hairs and quibbling over semantics.
Last edited by xerx; 08-15-2013 at 08:29 PM. Reason: split stuff into a list
anything they want? none of my business.
[Today 12:23 AM]InvisibleJim: The mistake of Xerx in his post this morning was ignoring that price signals realise aggregate information on the spot and foward trends which are far superior to those of a hand barter system. It's simply not possible for me to ever monitor every transaction of bread and its swap for some value in 'contentment' and therefore to plan to make more loaves.
[Today 12:26 AM]mfckr: Right, they correspond to something Hayek sometimes referred to as hermeneutic or intersubjective knowledge.
[Today 12:27 AM]mfckr: And the lack of a pricing mechanism means no ability for economic calculation... Ergo the systemic flaw of all central planning
sounds like a good argument for a pervasive state that can monitor everything that happens, including your thoughts. this is possible with tech.
Short test, had to look some stuff up to answer some of the Qs, lol.
You are a cosmopolitan Social Democrat . 14 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 14 percent are more extremist than you.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
I don't know why but when I listen to Ashton he reminds me of Tyrrell of Blade Runner. Ahhh, I love gamma NTs; that dry and matter of fact vision of life. You make perfect sense... yet fail to translate into the real world effectively.
See, numbers usually fail to capture the essence of things. I've got a friend in New Jersey who lost his house in the last hurricane and told me that he got rescued by the National Guard and taken to a refuge. Even though he had his pockets full of money, there was nothing to purchase. And that makes you to think about the fact that people doesn't eat money, they don't sleep under money and they don't wear money. It doesn't matter how much technology advances, people's basic needs are still the same: x liters of fresh water and xxx grams of food per day, xx meters of roof to sleep under, etc. At this point, productivity has increased so much that it doesn't even matter how much it costs to cover the basic needs of the population.
A planned economy doesn't need to be planned at every level. It's perfectly possible to cover people's basic needs and allow them to act freely otherwise. It's a matter of breaking the all or nothing mentality here. Even what we understand as "democracy" is an hybrid between democracy and aristocracy: figures are elected but once in power allowed to take decisions by themselves.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
****mex.
Seriously, seeing you're able to lump so much bollocks in one post I have no doubts about your credibility.
Last edited by Absurd; 08-18-2013 at 07:33 PM.
You are a liberal Cosmopolitan. 4 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 89 percent are more extremist than you.
Isn't a cosmopolitan a dumb girly magazine? Isn't a liberal the opposite of a conservative? I think this got me wrong.
It's mine.
No Abbie. It's a drink.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Alas in many parts of the world we don't exist in a world of rationed basic provisions. That's why the most freedom works best, to allow individuals to capture their wants and to use their surplus to act upon them without interference.
The problem with modern democracy is how to eliminate the state from interfering and obscuritism, sic. PRISM, or EU legislation which paraphrasing politicians 'people are too dumb to understand so we just won't tell them because they will give the wrong answer'. All of these pet project amount to expenditure of surplus so diabolical that you have no recourse but to question the legitimacy of government if it doesn't know what it is for which is to maximize the happiness and surplus of its citizens (although some believe that is also so corrupt that it should not occur at all).
You're talking about statistics, not about real people. Tell me: is there a single place in the entire globe where there isn't homeless people? You see, big numbers don't matter at all when real people is sick or suffer from cold or hunger. What kind of freedom is that? So same argument as before: beautiful ideas and totally out of sync with the reality around us.
The problem is people failing to understand what's the purpose of the state. It's stupid to claim that the state shouldn't interfere with private business because at its core, the state has only one purpose:
To reverse the natural tendency to impose a will on others by means of accumulation of power.
This is easy to understand when it comes about an act of theft in a dark alley: an armed person, or worse, a group of armed people, have an edge over an unarmed individual in a conflict. If individuals were let to solve issues by themselves, obviously the criminals would win. However, the state strives to become the supreme force within a territory and submits itself to law, which is essentially reason in written form. It intervenes into "private" conflicts to make those assisted by reason to prevail.
In economic terms, corporations have an edge over individuals because they have armies of lawyers, accountants and lobbiysts to protect their interests. They know the average individual can't stand a two year lawsuit to defend their interests. Just like a medic knows that he can charge anything he wishes for his work simply because it's a bit too difficult for you to resist being overcharged when your life is at risk.
But the supreme argument against the myths of free choice and competition is the fact that people are naturally born devoid of any capital necessary for work, starting by the fact that they are born ignorant. In short people are born at disadvantage and proponents of the deregulation of market are doing nothing but attempting to institutionalize the exploitation of new generations by the old, on the basis of accumulation of power.
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I'll never stop chuckling at the idealist notion that 1 single homeless person is the end of all practical application and study of an economic system, nor indeed the failure to recognize that despite all of the good ideas in the world, there are some tragic people who only exist to be a warning to others. After all, human behaviour is economic behaviour and if there is one thing that humans are particularly good at, it's getting rid of what they don't want.
You wanted some beautiful ideas, ehWalking hand in hand in solidarity to give every vagrant a house and home, regardless of the threat they may pose to you are those around you.
And then go on to espouse that government is there as a necessary evil take care of everything you might not want take care of yourself. Those who would push on your boundaries and take what they would without the rule of law and the threat of the baton to restrain them.
If you don't want to let criminals into your house, why would you celebrate as a triumph and necessity the idea of you giving resources to house someone who might burgle your house, attack your family or introduce your children to drugs just because 'the state does it'?
Do note that those who are not supported by the state may do these things, but they don't indirectly demand your money before and afterwards to add insult to injury.
You should also note that the state does not stand to stop individuals from enforcing their wills upon others. 51% of the people (approximately, depending on the legislature) can command 49% of the rest to do whatever they want; considering that states are typically much less democratic it is more typical to see elite autocrats at the helm clutching on to a slither of support base (20-30%) or a military junta which they use as an excuse to exercise their will and force upon others.
I'm not sold yet friend, your arguments appear to be in opposition and contradiction.
I got: "You are a Neo-Conservative. 2 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 63 percent are more extremist than you."
9% on the nationalist side
32% on the fundamentalist
22% on the reactionary
7% on the authoritarian
51% on the capitalistic
23% on the militaristic
23% on the anthropocentric
Link: http://www.politicaltest.net/test/result/367260/
Greetings, ragnar
ILI knowledge-seeker
Why doesn't your comment surprise me? I've always felt different to other people, even fellow NFs, and I've done a lot of thinking about it. And I've come to the conclusion that the difference between myself and most other NFs out there is that I embrace my ethics with pride. Logicals intimidate most ethicals with their short range logic and emphasis on squareness. But I've discovered that what is perfectly square can still be a fallacy depending on what you're talking about. Think in terms of a bunch of nerds in a heated discussion about a science fiction world.I'll never stop chuckling at the idealist notion that 1 single homeless person is the end of all practical application and study of an economic system, nor indeed the failure to recognize that despite all of the good ideas in the world, there are some tragic people who only exist to be a warning to others. After all, human behaviour is economic behaviour and if there is one thing that humans are particularly good at, it's getting rid of what they don't want.
You wanted some beautiful ideas, eh
I can spot such things from a mile a way nowadays. As an NT you're still pragmatic from the logical side and it shows. You're merely talking about what you understand about an specific place and time, assuming that it's a good foundation to make generalizations. Let me show you why it's not.
It will not take humanity more than a century to develop universal constructors and when that happens, products will be produced 100% automatically. Since the cost of a product is in direct relationship to the human labor involved, when a product contains zero human labor, then its cost will be zero too. But not only that, by the time that happens, there will be no factories or labor organizations of any kind. It will be a society of self sufficiency so there will be no need for trade and thus, no need for a "market". Nobody will go to work because people goes to work in exchange for money and money is useful to purchase things. When there is nothing to purchase, there won't be money either.
I can hardly see concepts such as theft making any sense in such society. Concepts such as taxes will be foreign too. I say this in direct response to Ashton's comment in which he pretends to limit economy to a form that is currently practiced: financial economy. Money has never been the core element and it will never be. And concepts such as "pricing" are largely irrelevant for the same reason, if we're to study economy the proper way.
Now, rolling back closer to our present time, I will tell you about a common fallacy of economic conservatives (which seem to all be Gamma it seems). Often people overlook the catalytic effect of living inside a society and profiting from joint efforts. People says they owe the society nothing. And I ask you: is paying an electricity bill the same as building a power central? Or paying your taxes the same as paving all the roads in the country? See, there is a subtle difference between what is possible by strict personal effort and what is possible by collective effort. Most economic activities, if not all, depend on public infrastructure. If people had a good grasp of such a simple concept, they would never dare to claim that they are exclusive owners of their labor. Any "free enterpise" is the result of a collective effort.
Important here is to go even deeper, to see the painter do the painting, so to speak. In the end is about being selfish not willing to share with others and all kinds of rationalizations for it. It's about being programmed to see the world though the lens of competition and failing to understand cooperation.
Again, shortsightedness. You're talking about civic rights. Human rights are non negotiable. Sure, call it idealism if you wish, but civic rights are more primitive than human rights. Civic rights are natural in our stage and totally foreign otherwise. The society I outlined before will have no large and organized private interests to interfere with the state protecting human rights.
You need money to build armies, you know.
Yeah? Like claiming economy to be a human issue at its core and then blatantly disregard human beings?
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Skipping you embarrassing yourself with challenging needs with tastes and strawman of micromanaging central planning.
What is un fucking real is how you manage to ignore people spelling it out to you not to mention fucking reality of power dynamics.
I guess those letters were not big enough for you-
I told you as much before. Or more precisely about prevention of concentration of power, not general prevention of imposition, which is impossible.
Is there some kind of mental block? I am perplexed by gamman NT Se valuers ignoring basic power-dynamics. Somehow blinded by Te Fi?
Uh-oh.. I'm a commie..
You are a Social Democrat. 10 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 14 percent are more extremist than you.
Neoliberalism and a Democrat. That apparently correlates closely to Bill Clinton, Al Gore, George W Bush Jr and Dick Cheney. Not bad company I suppose and that certainly adds a lot of room to bring in the technocrats. Ideologues and "pure" ideologies are an antiquated relic of the old world now.
You are a neoliberal Democrat. 6 percent of the test participators are in the same category and 93 percent are more extremist than you.
IEE Ne Creative Type
Some) I
too...
The only way to prevent concentration of power is imposition of system of sharing of power. So for a small group of people or a billion. The most straightforward sharing of power is devision it in to equal parts. That is the core distribution of power in democracy. Everything on top of level of a voter is just a system of squaring wills of the voters. The people in that system ideally do not have any more power than anyone else, they just "happen"(by "magic" of being selected and forced) to be proxies - representatives or servants following letter of the law -officials.
Power being shared equally means that the maintenance and quality of the system depends on people participating and having a clue. You are an example of a person to whom the concept is apparently too hard.
Democratic structure has to be at least as big as other fish in the pond for obvious reasons.
If you want to know more about this type of economics, you can have a look into syndicalism and especially anarcho-syndicalism, which merges economy with politics. As described in the article, it's indeed a type of socialist economy other than a social market economy or a centrally planned economy.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
I thought you'd say that. Maybe it's really just a market with a different organizational structure. But to me, one of the central aspects of market economy is the fact that prices are determined via supply and demand. In its ideal form, the type of economy anarcho-syndicalists try to achieve works without money. That means they reject the concept of an economical value other than the practical value of the good. Of course, I'm sure that it will still not be completely free of these calculations. For instance, if there is a severe drought resulting in a shortage of food, the perceived value of food will rise accordingly (compared to the "regular" value).
If you see the system of a market in a broader sense, it's apparent that there are still suppliers and demanders in syndicalism. However, once it reaches its ideal state (that means abundance) and the demand drops because it's saturated, it stops to work as a market. If the collectives are able to produce enough for everyone, the distribution becomes a mere organizational task. In my opinion, the "market" is limited to the very moment in which the representatives of the collectives negotiate the terms of exchange. Since you probably believe that human needs are infinite, the market never really ceases to exist. (Actually, I don't think that it'll ever completely vanish, either. But its importance and the "need" to have a market will probably shrink.) The rest is just exchange without economic calculation.
I think this is very reasonable. Markets are a good tool to manage sparse resources/goods, but fail once abundance is achieved (at least in my opinion). These failures result in something like planned obsolescence and the need to grow for the economy to be successful.
Yes, I see the parallels to this. Especially this part:
It's clear that people would not agree to exchange goods with others if the deal is not fair. You can argue that there are "prices", but they are unverbalized and not calculated by a medium of exchange, as I said above. And since people are free to make agreements as they want, those markets would be commonly accessible and trade could only work voluntarily. So I would definitely agree with your initial statement saying that the (re)destribution of goods is not forced as it is in state socialism.(6) Participants communicate using commonly accessible markets, where they barter about access to resources held by other
participants. The development of prices for a specific good, whether they are increasing or decreasing, leads buyers to
look for alternative sources of procurement and thus enhances the dynamics of the market.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
(You were right about some things above and I could quote them, but instead I'll get to the main point to make it short.)
I was looking to find the central points which show the difference between two currents like anarcho-syndicalism and anarcho-capitalism. And also in the light of what you wrote above, maybe I've found the answer to that question.
Anarcho-capitalism grants everyone full ownership of things they have legally acquired (or inherited from their ancestors), not matter what it is. I have to admit that this is the intuitively obvious ("natural") solution from our today's viewpoint, which also seemingly does not need any further regulation.
And as you pointed out, anarcho-syndicalism has this apparently authoritarian rule of "no private property of production means", which of course looks like a random restriction to you. But it's actually just a device to limit privileges of birth and possibilities to seize power. Otherwise, the society would likely develop into a oligarchy over the years with a fixed distribution of influence. Political power would be eliminated, but replaced by economical power. This society might still be considered anarchic, but not free in my opinion.
What it all boils down to is egalitarism vs elitism. One group says that he who is able to stay on top has the right to be there, the other group says there shouldn't be a top (power-wise) at all. If there really is no "top" is certainly a matter of interpretation. However, the latter opinion should not be confused with soviet-communist "levelling down" of people. It's about equal oppurtunities.
But what I want to say is that both theories we discuss here have some basic preconditions to work properly. The non-aggression principle is an example for most libertarian theories. Some people could disagree and prefer the more natural and intuitive "rule of force" instead, disregarding the right of private property (another rule) and take what they can. Actually, I believe that the existance of rules is also a requirement for a concept to be a concept. That means that even if it seems contradictory and ironic, an anarchist society needs some rules as well. Everything else would be "nature" = everything what's possible is possible.
No matter what you believe in, this is definitely a tough question which I have to think through again.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
Good convo, guys.
What do you think about squatters taking over and renovating a building that isn't their property but is not in use and deteriorating? I like this idea of organic property rights or something. If the owner can't protect it from the squatters and can't maintain the building, this sort of violation might be beneficial to the society.
It would be nice to see a small community which could allow and encourage something like this to happen as an exception to what would be a strict property right.
Of course, it would be nicer if the owner could just easily hire the would be squatters to renovate it and in exchange give them accommodations in that building.
Any other examples of this you could think of?
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
From the viewpoint of my ideal society:
Residential buildings are no productive types of property, but it's usually enough for a person/family to own one permanent house or appartment. I'm not saying that people shouldn't be allowed to own more, but my opinion on that depends heavily on the situation. If there is an abundance of houses for everyone within the commune to have a reasonable accomodation, there's no need to regulate anything. But in the case of lacking living space (after a natural disaster for example), the people who lost their houses should be able to live in other people's secondary or tertiary houses. I also think that possession and property coincides, there should be no abstract property rights besides that, while the communes manage the excess property and collectives the means of production.
From the viewpoint of our contemporary society:
Basically, I have no moral concerns about the situation (it's like the "poor man is stealing bread to feed his family" scenario). But it depends on the individual case as well. I'm critical of attempts to reform property rights in order to allow things like that to happen, it just makes it more complicated and some people might actually be able to legally abuse these new rules. Laws are like an addiction for society, there is always the need to make more regulations.
No matter how I look at it, Ashton's scenario seems as it would escalate very quickly. The basic premise is "you own what you can defend" and we still have money which is ultimately a indicator of power (and a way to "store" power). Much money -> large private army -> greater ability to defend property -> more money from the property and so on. If there is any chance this society wouldn't deteriorate into an oligarchy or even tyranny, I don't see it.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
From this I deducted the rest of what you were going to say.
But how do you answer to this one?
This is something I've been thinking as well, especially from the slavery perspective. Of course one could argue why government couldn't do this as well.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
I think its a fair idea. If land or buildings deteriorate to the point to near the value of the land itself then people should be able to just take it (akin to settlement in the American Mid-west). It would unlock huge economc value for all involved parties (except those who secede the land) and there are parts of the world (e.g. ghettos, slums, housing estates) which are continually screaming for rapid re-investment and modernisation.
Sic: The biggest challenge is that government likes to pretend that it 'owns' land and resources; when infact it merely sells (or gives away) concessions to develop land and resources which should have a 'due diligence' model applied to them. It should be as simple as someone turning up with their local policeman or mail clerk and ticking a box on a form.
Long live Seasteading.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
