Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social).
So you expect people to voluntarily mop up floors and sweat in hard blue colar jobs instead of just traveling and having a good time in the beach and chilling in mountain lakes?
Or are the people who choose to chill in the lake the antisocials you speak of, what % of people you believe would go this way ?
They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership.
Computers pick your job? that sounds like a bad episode of black mirror
Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce.
Have a "free big screen TV" day at Wallmart and people will die in the trample, I guess we go back to the main disagreement, you believe this is just capitalism programming that can be easily changed by removing capitalism, i believe you are daft
Separating this because I have a few more follow up questions if you dont mind answering:
Can this system work locally or has it to be globally accepted at once?
If it can be local (country etc) do you control migration?
If you don't then how do you stop somebody to cross the border, take all of the products they can and sell-them in their capitalist country?
what about luxury or premium items, for example as you know, I love cars (probably your utopia only has public transport but humor me for argument's sake), but the production of lets say a Lambo is far more complex and resource intensive than some Ford fiesta, so naturally there will be an overdemand of Lambos, so you sign up a 200-year long waiting list for one? do the Lambo factory asks for more voluntary workers to grow so everybody who wans a Lambo gets one? and if they do wouldn't that lead to huge ammounts of resources being consumed since we stated that a Lambo uses like 10x the resources a Fiesta does?
How do you tackle that problem? I just used the example of one product but that happens in hundreds of products.
Anarchists are by definition anti-authoritarian. Nothing is compulsory. Behavior is socially enforced because its the only way to organize a society that benefits everyone (except those who are anti-social).
So you expect people to voluntarily mop up floors and sweat in hard blue colar jobs instead of just traveling and having a good time in the beach and chilling in mountain lakes?
Or are the people who choose to chill in the lake the antisocials you speak of, what % of people you believe would go this way ?
The best example of anarcho-syndicalism is from the book "The Dispossessed" written by Ursula K. Le Guin. The Anarresti were a group of people that left their earth and moved to the moon to start a commune. It's like if a bunch of anarcho-socialists could move to Mars and make a go of it there. The way the Anaressti handled it is they had what they called 10th day work. Every 10th day they would do the dirty work that was needed. They did this and the jobs they were posted to out of solidarity and brotherhood.
Someone that was just fucking off could get beat up, harassed, their life made a living hell. In this world probably a lot would be inclined to chill in the lake. I know I would be. Especially if a fucking computer was telling me what to do. One detail is that solidarity and brotherhood was not only needed for "happiness" on Anarres but in many cases simply survival depended on it. If Joevi is off chilling in the lake and there is a famine he is indirectly causing people to starve. There is a saying in Anarres: "Never eat if another man starves."
They argue that computers can do it (and in fact already do it in some parts of the world for certain things) but it could be scaled up to do everything. Distribution can be automated. Anarchists as far as I know argue for syndicates and worker self-management. If the resources are not managed by the workers themselves, then the managers are directly elected and recallable. In other words, people are democratically rotated as needed. The entire workforce always decides who is best suited for a specific job, which is what makes it fundamentally different from private ownership or state ownership.
Computers pick your job? that sounds like a bad episode of black mirror
It was actually one of the things that was criticized in the book. The computer becoming overly bureaucratic but I am sure a computer could do an efficient enough of a job of locating need. This is a world in which mutual aid is the highest good. They don't have property. They have never had property. It is duty to the commune to use your skills where it is needed. It is a similar idea to what Cuba did when they were sending their best doctors around the world to the places that needed it the most.
Another problem in the book is that the computer did not value theoretical physics. In fact the world didn't. It also didn't respect ingenious composing, absurdist satire, among others.
Yes, you could pick up any number of TVs you want. There are no laws in an anarchist society so it can't be "X number per person" lol. The whole idea is ridiculous since no one owns anything -- there is no private property. "Your" TV is not yours, it's a TV that you are currently using. Not sure why you would want to have more than one TV at a time while others don't have one though since you can't sell them to gain any sort of advantage over anyone else since it's not a competitive world driven by a market economy, you'd just become an outcast and probably get your ass kicked. Stealing things is ultimately an act motivated by deprivation. An anarchist society removes the preconditions for such deprivation to ever exist, as long as resources are not scarce.
Have a "free big screen TV" day at Wallmart and people will die in the trample, I guess we go back to the main disagreement, you believe this is just capitalism programming that can be easily changed by removing capitalism, i believe you are daft
On Anarres there is no stealing. If someone were hoarding TVs it would be looked at as some bizarre mental illness. People could just take them away from the guy too if they needed one. If there was an island somewhere bought by an eccentric billionaire that decided he was going to make his own commune and allowed socialist-anarchists to move there it eventually could get to that. It's not the most realistic case study because buying up a bunch of land in Montana would still be a United State of America. I think people can change though. It is possible to wake up from the consumerism and to wake up from the capitalism. A lot of people have no reason to or are just so hurried there's just no other options.
Separating this because I have a few more follow up questions if you dont mind answering:
Can this system work locally or has it to be globally accepted at once?
I believe it has to be local and ideally be isolated. Like a smaller country saying fuck it and moving in an anarcho socialist direction.
If it can be local (country etc) do you control migration?
I would set up some sort of anarcho-syndicalism, socialist quiz or perhaps an interviewing process. You wouldn't want any damn propertarians or profiteers getting through.
If you don't then how do you stop somebody to cross the border, take all of the products they can and sell-them in their capitalist country?
You build a wall or simply let it happen.
what about luxury or premium items, for example as you know, I love cars (probably your utopia only has public transport but humor me for argument's sake), but the production of lets say a Lambo is far more complex and resource intensive than some Ford fiesta, so naturally there will be an overdemand of Lambos, so you sign up a 200-year long waiting list for one? do the Lambo factory asks for more voluntary workers to grow so everybody who wans a Lambo gets one? and if they do wouldn't that lead to huge ammounts of resources being consumed since we stated that a Lambo uses like 10x the resources a Fiesta does?
How do you tackle that problem? I just used the example of one product but that happens in hundreds of products.
First of all, yes, the utopia would have public transport and perhaps ride sharing.
On Anarres wanting or having a lambo would be being a propertarian and an egoizer. A lambo factory would be deemed impractical and excrement. If they even have a car factory for personal use it would be to make electric powered Honda Civics or something similar and they would be used by whoever needs them similar to how some of the bike sharing works in cities. But, actually, taxis are free on Anarres so they would only need the bare minimum for car and truck factories.
After typing all this out I believe the first step is small scale communes. It might never get that far though. The neoliberals would be quick to snuff it out I would imagine so maybe we need a larger scale movement. I think a commune has a higher chance of success rate in a corner of Denmark or Finland then it does anywhere near the USA. Maybe some part of California. Some part of Paris. Some part of Montreal. It seems to make more sense as an extension from socialism. There seem to always be enough rationalizations for capitalism and the deep seeded fear of communism is strong in the USA. You tell someone you are an anarchist communist and their heads kind of explode. They don't know which misnomers to harp on first.
It looks like they ended up buying the land and that they also pay taxes to the Danish government. It was legit anarchy when they were simply collectivist squatters though. That's badass.
Before you know it you have a whole community tuned in. Then you have communities tuned in. Then maybe there is a bit of a shift in consciousness. It's not going to catch the folks hurrying through their middle class life but maybe it will someday.
Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all.
As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Yes anarcho collectivism in small groups make sense, there is direct accountability in small groups like if in "dirty job saturday" or whatever John doesnt show up well the community will give him shit for that, but this isn't how big societies in the hundreds of millions work, theres complete anonymity so the social pressure is indirect and while many people wil be civil "japan style", many won't and will collapse the system.
On your response about the Lambo its a bit scary how ascetic society can become, a bit dystopian in the entertainment and passion side, fast cars will be "outlawed" and anything deemed non productive for society, poker and all gambling will also dissapear and I wonder how many of these little things we enjoy that make life wort living are going to be sacrificed in the altar of an equal society.
On May 31 2018 04:52 Loco wrote:
Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all.
As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them.
My questions were aimed to define where you stand on certain things but I guess you wont answer.
The biggest anarchic experiment in modern history is Somalia, an involuntary form of anarcho capitalism in an actual country with millions of inhabitants, your anarcho collectivism bullshit experiments are nothing but a bunch of hippies living in the dirt and you ride me about ancap only living in the minds of online people, the borden of proof is in big societies, of course a bunch of people with likeminded ideas can live in a commune, but that wont happen when you have the anonymity and myriad of problems of a group of 300 million people.
Thats why i said premium/luxury, I didn't mean luxury as diamonds that are for status, I dont want a lambo as a symbol of status, I want it because its a fast car. I dont want a 5k PC as a symbol of status either, but there will be objects that will have overdemand, but I guess you will say that everbody will willlfully live frugally and desires such as these wont exist.
No gods. No masters. There was a year that I lived mostly in Argentina. I paid no tax to the USA government because I lived in Argentina. I paid no tax to the Argentinean government because I never met a poker player who did. Free market globalization baby. I was a successful small business owner. I was paying lower rent, lower costs while Buenos Aires is one of the most electrifying and magical cities on the planet Earth. Pretty damn fucking good CEO if I do say so myself. It's also quite lawless. I could smoke a joint on the street and no one would care. I could get pulled over for going 125 mph in a 45 mph and get away with a rather simple bribe. EV wise I'm driving however the fuck I want. EV wise I am doing whatever the fuck I want. It was quite liberating. I should have let the Swedes dress me. My fashion sense was hopeless at the time. You know I never once thought about giving my time or money to a charity. Certainly not time. You know how much my time is worth bro? Life is a lottery with winners and losers. Fuck up the world bro, we winners. I'll send some champagne to the Congo. Competition breeds innovation. Steel sharpens steel. We really want to be sitting around starving without iPhones? I'm not starving so niggas in Africa can eat. That's for damn sure.
Then a hollowness sets in. Then a depression. This game I loved so much is simply a means to a confused end. The drinks, the drugs, the prostitutes..... Don't get me wrong there were times with friends on a patio, at a house party, or at a parilla that I absolutely cherish. Those are some of the best times of my life but I didn't need money. Or, I needed enough money for a bottle of wine, some steak, chorizo, cheese. That's easily covered with 30 peso (10 USD). But, I soldier on and on and on. I make a bunch of money in the states. Now, they want tens of thousands from me. Now, they want tens of thousands in the form of estimated taxes. They aren't too pleased I got an interest free loan from them. I lose my drivers license for speeding and have to take mandated driver safety classes. I am afraid to possess marijuana. FREE MARKET WHERE ARE YOU?
I'm back in Argentina. I go broke.
I have money in the bank. I'm in the USA. I am a drifter. Crashing on couches living life. I just start reading books. I'm ready to go. I'm ready to win. I go to join the military. My dad gets me a job at a corporation. It's a new game. Steel sharpens steel. Let's win and I do. Promotion. Let's win and I do. Hyper-continual improvement, hyper-efficiency, self-exploited achievement-subject that can't bear to be alone with himself without a drink. Can't bare to be anywhere that isn't in a steel mill without a drink. I lose business, get depressed, self-destruct. I mean really self-destruct..........
Now, I am reading Edgar Morin. When is development a bad thing? What about growth? What about this obsession with the advance of technoscience?
I had to hit the bottom before I could see it. I mean really live at the bottom for years. It is very easy to be a free market guy as a business owner in the 2% living in Buenos Aires, Argentina. It's also easy for me to be an anarchist collectivist with nearly nothing.
The chances of a city in NAFTA converting to an anarchist collectivist commune is next to nothing. Now, a community? Now, there's a bit of a chance. A small country like perhaps Denmark, Finland, Iceland maybe someday. There version of politics seem to work out quite well for them. NAFTA I think just operates a little differently. Different histories, cultures, people. I just want to think about what can be done? What can I do?
Man, I don't want to be the guy to take the Lamborghini away from the guy who loves the racetrack or the country roads. My desire is I want to be the guy in the Lambo on the race track or the country roads. I am just not willing or not capable of doing the work that would lead to Lambo ownership. I don't think it's like a bitter thing though. I don't want to take this stuff away from them because I resent them. I don't know what I want. I want to move to France or Denmark or Finland. I want a universal basic income. I want capitalism and these fucking ghoulish corporate execs to chill the fuck out. I want all these manicured politicians and fucking lobbyists to die. I WANT NO GODS NO MASTERS!
On May 31 2018 04:52 Loco wrote:
Look Baal, I'm done discussing political economy here. The questions you are asking me are really basic misunderstandings and a lot of them are just appeals to personality incredulity, they are not even asked in good faith, you have already decided your position on things. I have better things to do than debate the very basics of something you should be knowledgeable about already as someone who has been calling himself an anarchist for like 10 years, or that you could look up in an anarchism FAQ. You can mock anarchism all you want, the historical record backs up left-anarchism only. 99% of human history involved people living in egalitarian societies, yet you think the burden of proof is on me to show you that a society could be egalitarian. It's your model that has no grounding in reality, it exists only in the minds of a few people online, at this one point in time, and has never been organized for. It couldn't exist or function at all.
As for luxury items, because it seems like it was a good faith question, I'll answer it. In an anarchist society, the plans for the luxury car are public domain. Everyone has access to everything. If the materials are available you can build yourself your car. The thing is, typical luxury goods are not naturally-occurring, 'organic' wants within a free society. They are dependent on a socio-economic system wherein luxury equals status. That is, the precondition for their existence is a 'consumer mindset' -- it's what you necessarily get when a society is market-based and structured hierarchically. An anarchist society is self-organized and formed voluntarily by people with a shared philosophy, you can't think about it in the way that you currently do by transposing capitalists/individualists/modern consumers into it and assuming anarchists would somehow have to tolerate them.
My questions were aimed to define where you stand on certain things but I guess you wont answer.
The biggest anarchic experiment in modern history is Somalia, an involuntary form of anarcho capitalism in an actual country with millions of inhabitants, your anarcho collectivism bullshit experiments are nothing but a bunch of hippies living in the dirt and you ride me about ancap only living in the minds of online people, the borden of proof is in big societies, of course a bunch of people with likeminded ideas can live in a commune, but that wont happen when you have the anonymity and myriad of problems of a group of 300 million people.
Thats why i said premium/luxury, I didn't mean luxury as diamonds that are for status, I dont want a lambo as a symbol of status, I want it because its a fast car. I dont want a 5k PC as a symbol of status either, but there will be objects that will have overdemand, but I guess you will say that everbody will willlfully live frugally and desires such as these wont exist.
Pull in front of a club when it closes with your lambo. There is something about a big breasted woman in a small cocktail dress giving me attention that gets me thinking hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm maybe there is something to this whole status thing. She'll probably be vacuous and unbearable to actually spend time with but again it's those fucking breasts in that small cocktail dress. Her big eyes and experience at flirting will probably turn the tides. One day you will be fucking this little debutante and cum all over those marvelous tits and you will always remember the power of status.
What the fuck do we do about THAT situation in life anarcho collectivists?
If you were to have a poll where people who own luxury cars anonymously give their main reason why they bought it, they would virtually all say 'I like the way it looks' or 'it's a fast car'. That doesn't make it true. People are not aware of larger order systems affecting them. Luxury purchases within consumer capitalism are always related to status and just because you aren't conscious of it doesn't mean shit. People's interpretations of why they do what they do have been shown to be entirely inaccurate by neuroscientists. It's just a fact that a different society generates different desires. If you were to ask an Eskimo what they want, they wouldn't tell you they want a Lambo. It's outside of their frame of reference.
There cannot be "overdemand" for anything because it isn't a competitive system. This is just your restricted capitalist logic trying to impose itself onto a completely different system. And there's no reason to believe that a post-scarcity anarchist society would be valuing austerity. We have the technology now to create things at zero marginal cost. In fact its the capitalists who preach the dogma of austerity to maintain their dominance, anarchists are not against luxury items per se, they just don't think they would be very much desired if the goal is health and living a good life.
Now you are just moving the goal posts. You were arguing that it is people's inherently flawed psychologies that makes anarchism untenable in your incredulous examples, it's too utopian because man is selfish and lazy, so what difference does it make that there were only a few million people engaged in the historical anarchist revolutions versus half a billion? It wasn't internal problems that led to their destruction and that's all I had to refute.
If there is a next stage in human evolution, and we don't go extinct by our own hands, an anarchist/classless planetary society is what will eventually exist, that is certain beyond a reasonable doubt. We can discuss the 'how' and indeed there are thousands of books on it, but it's less a question of 'how' than it is of 'when'. Until you realize this fact you will never be truly interested in the 'how' and I will not be interested in writings essays on here to stimulate your imagination and get you interested. Even less to defend my own well-informed beliefs on the matter.
Somalia is not an example of anarchy, it was "governed" by competing warlords. It can only be said to have lacked an internationally recognized government. It was an example of neo-feudalism. Do you sincerely believe that transposing the dynamics of this failed state to all the countries in the world would lead to greater well-being on the planet? A dog eat dog world ruled by warlords is your idea of human evolution?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Oh i'm more than aware that people dont realize they want things because their status, thats why I dislike precoius metals or gems, but I would like a fast card regardless of the status.
You speak about a post-scarcity societ as if its within our grasps, I think you have watched Zeitgeist 2 too many times, we are probably hundreds of years away from a global post-scarcity world.
I think its stupid to seriously discuss how society will be formed in a distant future, in a post scarcity society sure competition for resources which is basically capitalism doesn't seem to work that well, but as structures of power goes the State is a much bigger threat to that utopia than the economic system.
A system that workds under a few people doesn't prove it will work for billions for obvious reasons, I have a german friend who was one of the starters of that movement where they dont use money, eat from the excess of restaurants etc, that works for their little group, would that work for 100 million? no.
Again, I think speaking about society in a distant future is perhaps fun, but silly, and to make such claims with that level of certainty is as stupid and narrowsighted as those drawings in the 1800 about the future with people flying with paper wings and baloons.
Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?
If that was the case then you could have a non-branded, very powerful car with the shape of a turd and it would make no difference to you. Why the Lambo? You can keep thinking that you are somehow outside of the system that has created you, but I think you have no valid reason to exclude yourself to any appreciable degree. It's just a comfortable thought to think that you're that much different than others who have been affected by the same higher-order influences. It doesn't matter at all what it is that you consume in terms of luxury, what matters is how much violence went into it and whether it really makes someone happier or not.
I have never said that a post-scarcity society is within our grasp, I said that the technology and the resources are there to allow it, which is a totally different argument and the case for it is damn strong. If the current economic incentives prevent it and individuals are incapable of cooperating to change that then it clearly isn't within our grasp. I have no false hopes here.
as structures of power goes the State is a much bigger threat to that utopia than the economic system.
This is an empirical claim, so where is your evidence? I have given you counter-evidence: if the state was a bigger threat to human flourishing then it would be reflected in the Nordic countries where there are more regulations than there are in the US and elsewhere. But they do better on every metric.
Anarchists openly mock the idea of a blueprint for "one" future civilization, they understand that self-organization involves the making of decisions in real time, collectively, to face the current issues in one particular place at one particular time. That you present anarchists as nothing but airy fairy ineffective utopians is really hilarious.
"Ineffective fantasists" who birthed the DFNS in 2016:
They built a revolution that has liberated hundreds of thousands of women from "housewife tradition" and conservative Islamism, helped ethnic groups that have been encouraged to be at each others' throats for years thanks to statecraft to organize themselves into cooperative communities; they helped Assyrians, Kurds and other oppressed minorities of the region discover their own culture and languages once more through schooling and events after they had been put down for years.
Meanwhile, anarcho-capitalists in 2016 and their concerns:
Again, I think speaking about society in a distant future is perhaps fun, but silly, and to make such claims with that level of certainty is as stupid and narrowsighted as those drawings in the 1800 about the future with people flying with paper wings and baloons.
The only certainty is that the principles are worth abiding by no matter what because they have consistently shown to be dependable and that they can generate positive outcomes when there is enough support to fight for them.
You're interpreting the anarchist understanding that capitalism is unsustainable and that its structural violence should be opposed as a certainty that anarchism will always prevail. They're not the same, it's a logical error that you keep making. There is a saying in philosophy, "the best is the enemy of the better". Anarchists don't let an utopian vision stop them from working towards something better.
Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?
Violent struggles for power are the norm of an unregulated market economy, they are not anomalies. So are the externalities that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm not wasting your time, it's just that your conception of flourishing seems to amount to nothing but GDP growth, it's incredibly narrow-sighted and even that has to take into account the fact that they received fairly significant international aid too. Is 20% civilians fleeing their homes the sign of a flourishing society? What about these guys, did they flourish under the invisible hand of the market, having to resort to wasting their lives attempting literal piracy? What were they missing, the warlords didn't stumble upon Molyneux videos to teach them about the moral theory of Universally Preferred Behavior so that they could give away some of their wealth to the poor?
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
On June 01 2018 08:32 Loco wrote:
If that was the case then you could have a non-branded, very powerful car with the shape of a turd and it would make no difference to you. Why the Lambo? You can keep thinking that you are somehow outside of the system that has created you, but I think you have no valid reason to exclude yourself to any appreciable degree. It's just a comfortable thought to think that you're that much different than others who have been affected by the same higher-order influences.[/b]
I dont presume I'm above it, (It's me the one arguing the evolutionary psychology pont of view aren't I?), I'm saying I'm conscious to certain degree of it, and of course part of the appeal of a lambo is the status, however you know I race cars I appreciate a fast car with a beautiful engine sound, that handles, breaks and have an overall nice driving feeling, and yes I would be perfectly happy with a car with those characteristics that looked like shit.
I am not Marshall28 who bought a porsche with half of his bankroll when he cant even properly drive it, I had a Renault Clio for 10 years, I changed it 2 years ago because it was breaking down too much, so yeah im demonstrably happy with a car that drives as I want to and looks like shit.
I have never said that a post-scarcity society is within our grasp, I said that the technology and the resources are there to allow it, which is a totally different argument and the case for it is damn strong. If the current economic incentives prevent it and individuals are incapable of cooperating to change that then it clearly isn't within our grasp. I have no false hopes here.
you mean we currently have the technology to live in a post-scarcity world? I suppose how we define post scarcity, but if you mean that we have pretty much all of our desires satisfied I would disagree.
This is an empirical claim, so where is your evidence? I have given you counter-evidence: if the state was a bigger threat to human flourishing then it would be reflected in the Nordic countries where there are more regulations than there are in the US and elsewhere. But they do better on every metric.
How can it be empirical? I'm talking about your futuristic utopia, I said that because if we live in a post-scarcity society perhaps capitalism naturally starts losing sense, but I see slots for hierarchies to be built towards the management of resources which would be the state im talking about.
About your claims about Scandinavia I've read quite a bit about it and you will see that early in the XX century they were the most economically free countries in the world and nowadays that growth has stagnated, less so with Norway and its discovery of oil and extraction in the 1970s, so Scandinavia is basically cruising on the wealth created in the XX century, economically they certainly dont support your cause, however in this period they also developed as probably the most civil society in the world along with perhaps Japan, so socially and behaviorally do support your ideas I definitelly recknon that, but the "experiment" is still to young, the only way to see relatively fast if it can survive is if they abandon capitalism but given the amount of social benefits if they dont curtail migration the economic drain might be too high to fuck around with their entire model.
Anarchists openly mock the idea of a blueprint for "one" future civilization, they understand that self-organization involves the making of decisions in real time, collectively, to face the current issues in one particular place at one particular time. That you present anarchists as nothing but airy fairy ineffective utopians is really hilarious.
How is it relevant if they fought theocracies and freed people, that doesn't say anything about anarcho collectivism, perhaps it speaks well of these people but are you going adhominem here saying ancol are brave and strong and ancap are internet nerds or something? I hope you are not.
There is a saying in philosophy, "the best is the enemy of the better". Anarchists don't let an utopian vision stop them from working towards something better.
I am not doing that, I'm said I dont presume to know how society will look in a distant future, perhaps collectivism will make more sense then.
Your mistake is thinking that small increments to what you believe the ideal system is the way to go but It's not true, for example: You think that since free healthcare is part of your ideal you will pursue it, I think that under our system, free healthcare end up causing more suffering overall than the free market, so in your pursue of your utopia you will cause more suffering.
My ideal is ancap, but I think it would be difficult to defend in our level of social evolution, so perhaps a libertarian step before would work best, and perhaps collectivism later, as I said, I can't see that far and I see some scenarios where a post-scarcity society cannot be reached.
Somalia was torn and in the middle of violent struggles for power, yet it fluorished like never before by just removing the state idiotization of the free market for a brief moment, you knew the answer tho that "argument", why do you waste our time?
Violent struggles for power are the norm of an unregulated market economy, they are not anomalies. So are the externalities that you refuse to acknowledge. I'm not wasting your time, it's just that your conception of flourishing seems to amount to nothing but GDP growth, it's incredibly narrow-sighted and even that has to take into account the fact that they received fairly significant international aid too. Is 20% civilians fleeing their homes the sign of a flourishing society? What about these guys, did they flourish under the invisible hand of the market, having to resort to wasting their lives attempting literal piracy? What were they missing, the warlords didn't stumble upon Molyneux videos to teach them about the moral theory of Universally Preferred Behavior so that they could give away some of their wealth to the poor?
It didn't only grow in GDP, read a bit about it, and again what im saying is that despite all the mayhem going on, one would naturally expect everything collapse, yet it didn't, its certainly an anomality in the sense of what most people would expect to happen and what did happen, and why bring up piracy? of course there were big issues, it wasn't an evolution into ancap, simply the government was toppled and there was chaos in the country but amidsts this chaos it did better than it did when it had a state.
But it would be inconsistent of me to have such a low regard for mankind and not expect power struggles, as i said above maybe a libertarian society is a required step before ancap.
I think the biggest takeaway from this discussion is what you said about the better not getting in the way of the best.
You couldn't have democracy in 10,000 BC because the prime minister would get clubbed in the head by Wach'kul "the bone breaker" and he would take power, and in my eyes, you pursuing things like free healthcare would be like saying: "Ok Wach'kul is the leader, but he will require to get permission from congress to make laws"... no, congress are going to get the club too.
The 10,000BC society has to tone down at a personal level the head-clubbing, and then perhaps will be able to put a new societal system running.
I didnt know who she was before the whole Kanye thing but afaik she was an ex-SJW who sued its past employer for sexist or racism or something and now she saw an opportunity to gain traction as a black conservative shill, so she seems to be a piece of shit.
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a survey Thursday showing suicide rates increased by 25% across the country over nearly two decades ending in 2016. Twenty-five states experienced a rise in suicides by more than 30%, the government report finds.
Neoliberal economics wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?
The most interesting finding is that over half of those hadn't been diagnosed with a mental illness. Mental illness of course has been reported to have sharply increased in the last decades, in fact it has been increasing since the 30s, so slightly before late stage capitalism or what capitalists argue has been the golden age of capitalism. This tells us what we already suspected: that this already significant increase is in fact likely off by a lot... it's not accounting for all of the people who are suffering silently and not getting diagnosed. Men especially are more unlikely to seek help because depression is regarded as a weakness of character and unmanly in modern western society. This is despite all of the money that has gone into research and drug development to treat anxiety and depression. All of that of course is almost always a band-aid that causes more issues than they resolve, since these are psychosomatic illnesses caused by hierarchical structures of dominance and the competitiveness, the alienation and the poverty (both of mind and material) that they generate by design.
When people die under socialism, that's socialism. When they die or they suffer from chronic conditions under capitalism, it's just natural, it's just life.
fuck I should just sell some of my Pokemon cards, if no one stakes that is what I will have to do - lostaccount
Actually it has fluctuated a lot you idiots, there is a stronger correlation between internet penetration and suicide than economic policies and suicide, so is the internet responsible? or just perhaps correlation does not mean causation and a complex action like suicide has hundreds difficult to pin point factors.
Loco blames suicide on capitalism and hierachy, yet the most egalitarian and socialist modern countries in the world happen to have the highest suicides % in the world, yes the scandinavians.
This is the second time Scandinavia debunks your ill concieved dogmatic views, first your blank-slate views on gender roles and now this lol.
United States. May 31 2018 02:08. Posts 8535
