Individualism

[InvisibleJim]

Sloth bombing this remarkably stupid thread.

Invaluable forum contribution award.

You fucking love the drama.

[Scapegrace]

*Voids everything Jim says with baby sloth pictures.*

[ashlesha]

Ashton explained to you that this is still incentivisation and you agreed in post #100.

Did you fall and hit your head hard on your irrelevant point? If amnesia is a problem for you, see a doctor.

no he didn't.

I think this has been dragged on way too long because of a misunderstanding about how social benefits work in different areas and personal dislike.

[Gilly]

I thought biker gangs and corporations already run the world?

Like I said, clearly you've never hung out with bikers, or spent any real amount of time in a corporate environment around people who are successful at climbing. Personally I've done both, and I'll take all the shitfaced sleazeball senators I can get.

Now all I'm waiting for is the biker gang corporation.

Aha. Ha.

[Gilly]

Ayn Rand is boring and superfluous. I'm not sure how anyone reads her stuff.

Atlas Shrugged sucks. Read The Fountainhead. Pure gold.

[Creepy-pokeball]

I can tell that Jim feels like he has the upper hand here because he's not using his handy-dandy popcorn emoticon.

[InvisibleJim]

Atlas Shrugged sucks. Read The Fountainhead. Pure gold.

True that, the weird architect savant guy and dominique are more pro than other characters.

[ashlesha]

but has archon read books about what bikers and corporate climbers are like??????????????????

[Gilly]

Anarchists are naive

I have heard all the stock arguments and my position remains; I've learned a lot from talking to Ashton and cpig and others, and many of my views have been affirmed or revised consequently, but I still maintain that anarchy is just stupid. The bottom line is that consumers are not capable of monitoring and policing corporate practices at the same level and depth of scrutiny a government is, period. There are definitely some things people have to be forced into, because quite frankly, most people don't give a shit about anything more than their own day-to-day survival and comfort, and will not cooperate with the rest of us in making our society a better place, and we simply wouldn't be able to do the same things without their money that we can with it.

[anndelise]

@Jadae2point0 and @Scapegrace

[Creepy-pokeball]

Anarchy in and of itself (not the extensions) is just the spark of a beginning -- it does not have much in the way of ability to sustain itself as long as other ideaologies. I think that one approach to look at systems is how long theyre capable of holding up to daily momentum (sustainability, for example). This is not to say that any system is truly sustainable.

[ashlesha]

maybe it's the fact that you see them as "other people" who are "imaginary" and I see them as "family, friends, people I know" who are "real."
@Ashton

[Creepy-pokeball]

Video.

lol this is where Jess goes to mental heaven.

[ashlesha]

I don't know 99% of the people you know, so they don't exist to me.

they do to me. geddit?

[ashlesha]

its like getting diet tips from an obese person.

[Gilly]

Lol. If people are too stupid to regulate themselves or responsibly oversee policymakers, this utterly undermines any imperative whatsoever for the 'necessity of government'.

Good job eating your own defecated argument.

Jesus christ



The structure of the government allows common people a level of control over policy; not as much as we would have ideally, and the bureaucracy is a financial burden, but at least it keeps the real demons at bay. Anarchy does not. Our constitution and political process do a lot to keep ill-intentioned or purely self-interested people out of power, and regulate their affect on the rest of us in the case that they do get some position. With the world run like a corporate cesspool, it'd be the middle ages all over again, only power-hungry, sociopathic kings and their rich ass buddies would be able to exercise an even greater technological monopoly. The government may be ineffectual according to its own terms, but pretending it does nothing more than waste money is shortsighted and downright ignorant; if nothing else, it forces people wishing to do ill with large amounts of money and power to go even further to circumnavigate the public eye in order to maintain their position.

[Gilly]

Except government obviously doesn't work as a sustainable mechanism that anybody can exercise rational oversight over. The legislators don't even know what's in the bills they pass.

It's better than the smartest sociopath winding up with the most nukes in his arsenal, and having one button to press.

Find a better solution.

Been working on it since I was 13.

[Gilly]

Or in the case of government, the dumbest sociopath winding up with a battery of nukes at his/her disposal.

Except there are procedures, checks and balances, and a whole slew of other people that are involved in the physical chain of igniting our nukes. Sociopaths, assholes of all varieties, and crazy people also have a better chance of getting power without needing people as a whole to approve of them; the more eyes, the better. Even the sweetest little angels are lazy and self-serving at a certain point, so keeping SOME kind of check on them beyond not buying what they sell is basically necessary.

Good luck. Philosophers have been tangling with the problem of Statism for thousands of years already.

Yeah, well, there's a first time for everything. People tried to fly without succeeding for even longer; evolution, from microbes to cells to organ systems to organisms to organized societies, has shown that organization and efficient cooperation build upon each other, and multiply unless they are impeded by inefficient and uncooperative pieces of their own puzzles. The human race will be no exception, and will share that same downfall if we aren't as vigilant as we can be as a whole.

[Creepy-male]

All I have to say about this is that the republican party likes to represent itself as being opposed to "socialism", "entitlements", and "wealth redistribution" but if you really look at their track record and the way they vote and run things you will see they are just as for a large government with a huge budget being poured into a variety of programs. The only difference is the philosophy on where that money is being spent -- republicans tend to favor distributing wealth upwards to bail out big corporations and enact policies that allow for corporations to have less expenses all in the name of "trickle down wealth", they oppose policies which offer those in poverty or poor conditions government services. Republicans also tend to favor defense spending and have a different philosophy when it comes to the prison-industrial complex-- many prisons are privately owned but there is still some benefit between politicians looking to deal with growing prisons and businesses looking to cash in.

The liberal mentality is pretty much the reverse -- favoring government services for the impoverished and spending into civic innovation, culture and development versus defense.

In my opinion the real problem isn't partisan but focused on inefficient beurocracy that needs to be trimmed -- I think there are several major blockers to trimming this and several different solutions to improving it. Part of it is the media/politics getting in the way of informing citizens on the important aspects of the government/economy -- however the solution to this can't be approached head on as apathy will quickly devour any attempts to improve conditions in the short term at least.

[Gilly]

Narcissistic sociopaths are often adept at putting on compelling public images, grafting their way into power by charismatic demagoguery. If what you say is true, then the history of Statism wouldn't be comprised of people like ******, Stalin, Mao, Khomeini, etc. ascending into power. The State apparatus actually seems to be a wonderful vehicle for these sociopaths/assholes/crazies you speak of, to unleash their aspirations on a far larger and unmitigated scale than they'd otherwise be able to without it—see centuries of world war and mass democide.

If only the history of CEOs was put under such a microscope. Care to talk about the psychopaths who run companies like Pfizer, Haliburton, etc? What I'm saying is that shitty people are rampant, and I'm glad we agree on that fact, but I think it's better to at least TRY to keep a public eye on them.

Just look at the way companies will compete and wage pissing wars over things like patents, copyright infringement, etc. You think that wouldn't get a little more personal if they all had personal armies?

As for nukes in particular, the technology has only been on the scene for ~65 years, so give it some time. The only reasons you haven't seen nuclear weapons used more often thus far is because the technology hasn't been widely mobilized, and because the international world order (which itself is an anarchy) has been kept in check by the USA/USSR hegemony—whom engaged in sufficient rational self-interest to avoid a full-scale global nuclear exchange given that the cost/benefit incentives had been unfavorable. Despite the prevailing doctrine of MAD, both sides did conceive and prepare for contingencies that a nuclear war could be 'winnable'; had the odds been a little more lopsided, you can reasonably assume that WW3-style nuclear exchanges would've occurred, even perhaps under a preemptive pretext by the weaker side.

With the disintegration of the USSR, and now a few decades later the twilight of US military supremacy, that hegemony has come to an end. In the upcoming years you'll see open mobilization of nuclear weapons by more parties (technically already happening), and I suspect that limited nuclear exchanges between belligerents will become an increasingly commonplace reality in the future. You may see the emergence of some kind of multipolar equilibrium of power which deters this, but I doubt it—a State actor with an esp. vicious ideological streak (e.g., a future Islamic confederation) has little to stop them and little to lose in nuking a rival.

I fail to see what these hypothetical scenarios have to do with the effectiveness of "statism." You seem to be coming from a pretty resigned, misanthropic projected worldview, so I'm not sure why anyone would give weight to what you think will bring positive results. A bit like taking lessons on life priorities from someone with a deathwish, or who is just really depressed.

Oh, and if any nation detonated nuclear weapons in a preemptive strike, most other nations would probably bomb the everliving fuck out of them. I bet it would suck pretty hard, but at least there would be bodies of power more publicly motivated than purely financially motivated corporations there to respond.

Hence the dilemma of Statism.

Yes, I agree bureaucracy is undesirable, but you can't be so hasty as to think it is entirely without purpose. I agree certain aspects and areas of control have gone too far, but it strikes me as childish and hasty to throw it all to the winds.

[Gilly]

You're not going to see me defending corporate practices. I've also explained before how corporations are creatures and servitors of the State, and that it's questionable whether corporations would even exist as a viable legal construct without government cronies.

So what would exist? Fiefdoms?

You assume it would be practical for large firms to field personal armies.The enormous financial logistics of training and maintaining a bunch of dudes with guns who basically add nothing of productive value to your firm, doesn't help one's bottom line.

As soon as one of them does, absolutely. Hostile takeover looks pretty bad on the bottom line.

Lol, what? The point was that States historically do a piss poor job at preventing incidences of mass death & destruction—if anything, they're prime enablers of it.

Statistical rates of literacy, murder, technological acceleration, etc. would seem to disagree.

Ergo, I see little to worry about re: your far-flung hypothetical counterexample positing the scenario of "rogue sociopath w/ a nuclear arsenal coming to power in an anarchic world." When it's obvious that sociopathic political leaders have already been doing this, and odds are will escalate doing so because fewer meaningful checks/balances exist to disincentivize and deter this in the context of government power.

Yes, obviously bad apples still get through. But not as many as there would be in an unregulated, cutthroat business world.

Not sure where you're getting depressed or deathwish from any of this.

Well you seem to be assuming the inevitability of a nuclear holocaust. That strikes me as dangerously pessimistic.

Nice thought, but who? The US is the only one in the world with a sizable enough fleet of long-range bombers and strike aircraft on hand to accomplish this; with huge defense cuts looming ($110B for next year alone), that probably won't remain the case.

Oh right, I forgot, the other nations' nukes are just for show.

In absence of government, there's nothing to stop people from hiring professional mercenaries, forming private militias, contracting assassins, etc. for this sort of thing.

But it wouldn't be good for the bottom line!

It strikes me as childish to cling to the futility of something that doesn't work and never has.

Go live in Somalia or the Dark Ages and tell me anarchy "works."

[ArchonAlarion]

Go live in Somalia or the Dark Ages and tell me anarchy "works."

Anddddddddd... you lose.

[ArchonAlarion]

Again, few nations hold appreciable amounts of nukes which could be could be delivered that far. The US and Russia have the largest capable arsenals. I'm not sure what the delivery radii on Chinese, French, British, or Israeli ballistic missiles are.

[Gilly]

… do you even know what a corporation is? Look it up on Wikipedia.

I probably know what a corporation is better than any definition could tell me. I work for one.

Still seems nonsensical when businesses don't even hold territory.

Are you joking? What is a corporate HQ? What about their patents and production facilities and customer service centers and all other assets? That sounds like economic territory to me.

Funny you bring up Somalia then, which under anarchy improved on most measures of human welfare relative to other African nations—see PDF.

Touche. But you still wouldn't live there. They are still an economic, technological, and standard of living armpit compared to most first world states.

Whose competing self-interests check and balance each other far more so than any system of government does.

Yeah, and impede progress with even more corruption and bureaucracy. Get real.

I said nothing of nuclear holocaust. I said limited nuclear exchange—for example, being used within a battlefield theatre, and/or maybe blowing up over a city or few.

Right, that wouldn't escalate quickly...

Again, few nations hold appreciable amounts of nukes which could be could be delivered that far. The US and Russia have the largest capable arsenals. I'm not sure what the delivery radii on Chinese, French, British, or Israeli ballistic missiles are.

Oh but some hypothetical, incredibly aggressive, super Islam nation is going to have more than them? I know Iran has plants and all, but what the fuck dude?

I'm talking about people, not corporations.

Right. And you would love to be one of those. Command your own personal army.

Last I heard they're still contending with foreign govt incursions, backed by Western powers.

And I wonder how long it will be before another typical African psycho dictator takes over. Care to make a bet? I say within 5 years.

[Gilly]

Anddddddddd... you lose.

Care to elaborate?

[ArchonAlarion]

Dark Ages Europe and Somalia (despite its relative improvements) are not exactly shining examples of secular, libertarian-capitalism, are they? I mean, you might predict that is how an anarchic society would end up, but it's simply dishonest to imply that those examples are fruitful contexts for the development of anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism or w/e as Ashton has advocated. You are basically throwing your hands up, grasping at the most brutal examples of decentralized chaos and micro-despotism, as if that will prove your case.

[Jimbean]

Capitalism is not a parasite to society like government or corporate government mixture.

[mikemex]

Now you know how politics works. Congratulations. Just talk, no action.

You seem to confuse the art of exploiting people with politics. It's true, in practice they usually come together but it's not the same thing. Is it that you really don't know it?

[InvisibleJim]

Most people tend to misconstrue the role of government and the rule of law.

Most usually because they disagree with the concept of natural justice and how it is ensrined in common law. The most important concept is the right to a fair hearing, including the right to make your opposing case and also the removal of apparent bias. This means that both people have a view and decisions are made based upon past precedent rather than what people think is right today.

One can easily see that countries which have best adopted common law and enshrined them within the legal system have been the most economically successful in the world as opposed to those countries who believe law by statute is the best method of governance.

The reason for this is intrinsic: When property and contractual rights are clearly defined by precedent and cannot be redefined by government or public pressure then the indivudal is free to create wealth and improve their local environment. Success is not removable by force/robbery.

The gradual erosion of common law by acts of parliament and lawmakers on both sides of the atlantic can be seen as the cause of reduced small and medium business creation. What are these erosions? The removal of civil liberties, property confiscation through wealth redistribution and passing de jure acts to restrict freedom of individual creativity such as SOPA/PIPA.

[Absurd]

You seem to confuse the art of exploiting people with politics. It's true, in practice they usually come together but it's not the same thing. Is it that you really don't know it?

It's the same thing all the way, through and through. Be it direct and indirect democracy. It's not that the representative (indirect democracy) exploits the wishes of the people (the community), it's the other way around. Although when it happens we talk about corruption.

You seem to know little and talk much. Have you tried getting into politics?

Hell, it's the same on this forum like in real life. Hkkmr ask what you people want to get done, see on this site and you go blahblahblah and so on. But when he makes some kind of decision that is going to benefit only him, you go blahblahblah in uproar.

It's easy. Although he wasn't voted admin, that's the only difference.

[Gilly]

So that's a no.

HURR

Stop being clever and trying to win, and face up to the reality. Whenever people group together towards a common purpose, they are bound to do heedless, sociopathic shit. All I'm saying is least put it up for peer review.

I mean actual physical terrain. Patents are immaterial and wouldn't exist in a stateless society.

Ok that's fair.

Fighting battles over CorpHQs, factories, service centers, etc. would be silly since they'd just be destroyed in the process.

Fighting battles over castles and cities is similarly retarded. But we do it anyways! And so it would continue.

Not to mention that the protagonist(s) would face threats of direct boycott by disgruntled consumers who aren't exactly fond of violence being perpetuated. Even organized crime gangs make disciplined efforts to not go brazenly shooting at each other in order to keep the heat of angry locals+police off their back.

Right, and what happens when there's no police? Oh wait, but rich people will probably fund police and public safety, instead of just looking out for themselves. Ha. Ahaha.

Also I think you meant antagonist. And no, they would not face consumer boycotts if they had the ability to throw media campaigns of their own and confuse people. Look at how we do it today! At least we have peer review.

Well come on, it's Africa. Of course it's not going to be up to the living standards of any 1st-world country.

And all first world countries just HAPPEN to have central governments. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they WORK, at least on some level.

Competitive self-interest tends to promote efficiency, whereas coercive monopolies (like govt) become bloated and corrupt.

Yes and leaving people to their own devices tends to promote self-interest, which tends to promote corruption, backstabbing, and doing anything they can to get more power. At least we have peer review.

Shrug. From the graphic AA posted, two nuclear-armed enemies like India and Pakistan could easily expend their entire stockpiles at each other, and still wage a long-term conventional war afterwards.

Lol not if they actually used those nukes tactically. It would take, what, maybe 2 or 3 hydrogen bombs to level each good sized city, and then a couple more to take out major military bases? After that, not much of a war to fight.

You're thinking too much like the movies tend to portray that nuclear war = holocaust, which isn't realistic.

You don't think it would be a domino effect? You think that one country would drop one nuke and suddenly everyone will go "Whoa whoa lets talk this through?" Talk about naivete...

Iran alone? Probably not anytime in the near future. But an alliance of Islamic states like Iran+Egypt+Libya+Syria+Jordan+Lebanon+Iraq+Afghani stan… sure.

We'll see how well THAT works out.

I wouldn't have any reason to.

Once everyone else did, you sure would. All it takes is one.

Like Siad Barre, Somalia's final president before the anarchy? If an African psycho dictator does take over, they probably won't emerge from within Somalia given the decentralized nature of its clan-based society and the absence of a functional state apparatus.

Again, all it takes is one group getting significantly bigger than the rest, and it's the same story all over again. Ever heard of a little country called Rwanda?

[Gilly]

Dark Ages Europe and Somalia (despite its relative improvements) are not exactly shining examples of secular, libertarian-capitalism, are they?

And you presume a defunct America would be? Soviet Russia wasn't a prime example of communism, either, but you don't want to try that again now do you?

I mean, you might predict that is how an anarchic society would end up, but it's simply dishonest to imply that those examples are fruitful contexts for the development of anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism or w/e as Ashton has advocated. You are basically throwing your hands up, grasping at the most brutal examples of decentralized chaos and micro-despotism, as if that will prove your case.

That's right, be the yes man. Either cook your own dish, or stay out of the kitchen.

There will never be fruitful conditions for letting people run unchecked by a popular apparatus, unless you want dictatorship.

[Gilly]

Favourite economists saying:

You get the unemployment you pay for.

Have you not played witness to the same rampant debauchery of spoiled, jobless, rich brats who get TV time that I have? What is Paris Hilton? A multi-million dollar financial burden on society, to the degree of tens of thousands of families on welfare. At least they SPEND their money, and put it back into the economy; spoiled rich fucks hoard cash and gold, and pollute the priorities of our society from an economic standpoint. Maybe I've seen this side of society better than most, having lived in rich towns and gone to boarding schools in one of the richest areas of the country, but when you realize the heinous amount of money that our people are spending on pointless shit, most of which is made in China or Taiwan, and taking money out of our economy in the billions, while hoarding even more of it in their swiss or cayman islands bank accounts, or hocus-pocusing most of it away in corporate bookkeeping manipulations to lower their taxes...when you see this shit and realize that it's real, and that consumerism is destroying our country penny by penny, THEN you will realize why the rich are a burden on the rest of us.

[Absurd]

Oh Gilly, easy, let me police those pesky Gammas. I mean Gamma people - that sounds better.

[InvisibleJim]

THEN you will realize why the rich are a burden on the rest of us.

Its up to the person who earns the money as to who inherits it.

It can be left to their children or the cat and dog home. But I certainly wouldn't leave it to the people I meet in the street. So you are running roughshod over individual rights because you don't like the decisions they make with their own earnings.

The second problem you have is that of inflation; these people do buy stupid shit; but if you just take the money and give it to everyone else you have two effects
a) You increase the price of everything else in the economy because you have more money chasing exactly the same supply of goods and services
b) Because expanding the supply of money is at the detriment of capital investors you receive a reduced supply of goods of services thus leveraging an effective decrease in purchasing power.

Supply side economics works; the difficulty most Americans have is that they haven't experienced a deflationary cycle in their life time as the monetary supply expanded to meet a lack of credit; the UK had one in the 80-90s where interest rates and inflation went up to 10-14% at the peak, people had to work two jobs to just pay the rent; everyone got richer, but actually became poorer in terms of purchasing power.

A good example of this is the current price of oil and metals. Steel and oil are still at roughly the same price as the boom. Why, there isn't the money left to speculate is there? The dollar has lost 30-40% of its purchasing power in relation to oil exporting countries currencies over 4-5 years.

The world economy has doubled in size since the credit crunch in 2008 fro $40 trillion to $80 trillion; its just all in Asia, Africa and South America. Those poor starving countries are the investment hubs of today; not of tomorrow and we have spent all of our money on ridiculous redistribution schemes; unless you were an individual smart enough to get your money out before they tried to confiscate it through deflation/quantitative easing. Comment: 20-30% of that is deflation of the dollar itself.

[Gilly]

Its up to the person who earns the money as to who inherits it.

It can be left to their children or the cat and dog home. But I certainly wouldn't leave it to the people I meet in the street. So you are running roughshod over individual rights because you don't like the decisions they make with their own earnings.

I dislike those decisions because they FUCK THINGS UP FOR THE REST OF US

So yeah, if they are doing shit that affects everyone else, everyone else should have a say. Makes sense, right?

The second problem you have is that of inflation; these people do buy stupid shit; but if you just take the money and give it to everyone else you have two effects
a) You increase the price of everything else in the economy because you have more money chasing exactly the same supply of goods and services
b) Because expanding the supply of money is at the detriment of capital investors you receive a reduced supply of goods of services thus leveraging an effective decrease in purchasing power.

I don't want to give it to everyone else. I want to fight the deification of money and rich people, and work towards supporting culture that doesn't encourage people to be 100% out for themselves.

Supply side economics works; the difficulty most Americans have is that they haven't experienced a deflationary cycle in their life time as the monetary supply expanded to meet a lack of credit; the UK had one in the 80-90s where interest rates and inflation went up to 10-14%; everyone got richer, but actually became poorer in terms of purchasing power.

A good example of this is the current price of oil and metals. Steel and oil are still at roughly the same price as the boom. Why? The dollar has lost 30-40% of its purchasing power in relation to oil exporting countries currencies over 4-5 years.

Care to explain how this is relevant?

[InvisibleJim]

Care to explain how this is relevant?

Because you are arguing that individual irresponsibility is the right thing to do by confiscating success just because you don't like it. In effect you wish to communise success; but you also communise failure.

Supply side economics is key because you argue that shrinking the economy will provide more goods for more people, which isn't technically feasible.

The example is relevant because it is a good example of how robbing the value of savings by printing money is already making your country a poorer place especially for the poor. Instead of benefiting from the ability to purchase cheaply relative to say China, they are now starting to be out-competed for the same products and services.

[ArchonAlarion]

And all first world countries just HAPPEN to have central governments. Couldn't have anything to do with the fact that they WORK, at least on some level.

Somewhat relevant; might give you some thoughts, might give you some ammo:

http://mises.org/journals/jls/9_2/9_2_5.pdf

[Absurd]

What kind of gun you're shooting, AA?

[ArchonAlarion]

E-Pen15 Automatic