Topic: A Resource Based Economy - page 53. (Read 288348 times)

What I am saying is that the means of production shall not be subject to traditional ownership in a capitalist sense. It is not supposed to be hoarded since it isn't utilized then.
There is a (in)famous marxist quote on that matter: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

The same way Libertarians express their "freedom" as the ability to own the means of production, I express mine as the ability to seize them without payment within need.

But can't small scale production still be controlled by the little guy and money is just a tool (kind of like Atlas was - a tool I mean)? The junior nutball has a point.

Neither,

I already made my point clear, the crux of the matter are the means of production. These are so unfairly distributed in our society that any discussion about if money is a necessity becomes irrelevant.
This is also where Libertarians and traditional Anarchists disagree, it's the central point of all economics.

Bumping this up for further discussion.

At the beginning of this fine thread Nefario the scammer said, "The fact that bitcoin cannot be manipulated and diluted the way that fiat currency can is a big bonus and helps prevent governments or other groups stealing wealth by manipulating currency." Does anyone still believe this to be true. Perhaps he just meant he wanted the opportunity to steal all wealth for himself.

Atlas, the forums renowned nihilist super genius believed, "Money is a tool that allows people to easily convert their labors and goods. It's an essential tool that allows for wealth creation otherwise bartering would add an unsustainable amount of overhead." Quite an observation for a screwed up 16 year old kid with suicidal tendencies from Texas.

Are either of these observations correct? Would you side with the common thief over the junior nutball?

Sarcasm detection fail.

Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Going_postal

What's the postal phenomena anyway? All I know is this wacky game, are you telling me it's based on a true story?

There are severe problems in our society, but I heavily reject the notion that Peter Joseph is our savior and will deliver us from all evil.

Mark the date. LightRider just said something sensible.

But seriously, you're both right, though the latest ones seem to have had more to do with the psychotropic drugs they were on than anything else.

We are all of us shaped by the contours of our environment. And we are all victims of a sick culture.

I was under the impression it had everything to do with someone way more intelligent and mature for his age than his peers, driven to madness from having to deal with bullying and ostracism by those too dumb to understand him (like the few cases of highly intelligent loner school shooters before him), and nothing to do with our sociopolitical structure?

Because fuck logic.  Whenever a person can't understand that what they want to do contradicts what they are saying, I just know that said person is wronger than Papal rape and no argument will persuade this person.

If coercion is the use of threats or force to modify behavior, then the both of you are engaged in coercion.

If coercion is the initiation of threats or force to modify behavior, then only you.  He's only responding with force to your forceful and initiatory attempt to get his stuff (thus modifying his behavior).

Doesn't matter what you call the thing, though -- under Hoppean rules of property, what you are doing is wrong.

No, "coercion" is well defined.


You do have a point, however, regarding how a person's views (especially re: property) will color the perception of which side is engaging in coercion. In your bread example, for instance, if someone who does not believe in private property is trying to take a loaf of bread from someone who does, then both will view the other as using coercion. Of course, the non-propertarian has no "right" to that body he's using, so why is he trying so hard to keep control of it?

What coercion is depends on some assumptions. It would be best to try to uncover what these are.

I think we can all agree, at least within the confines of contemporary practicalities, that people have a right to force things, including other people, out of the boundaries of their human body. The boundaries might be extended to include immediate needs to support one's own life, like air to breathe, so on.

However this common ground is not very extensive. For instance, what about livelihood in general? Suppose I am hungry and you have bread in your control. When I attempt to access that resource, you deny me access to it. Now who is coercing whom? Whether you accept private property effectively defines what coercion itself means in such cases.

Real life is immensely complicated when analyzed in this manner. The concept that people can own things, a contract you have with people at their discretion, is a normative measure that makes it humanly possible to reason about affairs in a society bigger than a small tribe. I think it's also perfectly reasonable to argue that private property is itself coercive for instance.

The contract you have with the State is very much like what you have with private property. I think the reason we think it's coercive is because of what we see as coercive. So "coercion" itself might not be a good foundation to communicate the problem we see with the State. People who don't agree with you in the first place will merely find it naive. Also, like property being an extension of our habit and desire of control, State is an extension of our desire and habit of externalizing responsibility.

I think this externalization of responsibility is what brings the concern of coercion, among many other concerns. There is no predefined limit to how coercive the State can be or in what manner or even what constitutes coercion. It will in fact create subjects that accept its assumptions through education. The shit State is capable of, that we've already seen, can't even be compared to any other evil humanity faced, and I think we haven't seen all yet. Besides, there are a lot of things we accept as fact now, which in fact are pure indoctrination with no scientific foundation whatsoever. That's one thing I agree with Zeitgeist people about.

Well said.

For the record, I can't read what user blahblahblah has to say, because earlier today he responded to a question / argument by exploding "SHUT THE FUCK UUUUUP!".  Classic statist exabrupt which unceremoniously landed him on my ignore list.  Shitty people who can't tell their foot from rape aren't worth anyone's while.

Well, I guess we're done here, then. If you can't even agree that "Do what I say or I'll beat/kill/cage you." is wrong, no matter what the circumstances, then there's no point in having any further discourse.

This is correct too.  The person who spoke about "circularity" earlier was mistaken (probably because he chose to be mistaken, otherwise he would have had to deal with cognitive dissonance provoked by his belief system).

Seems like you're using circular logic to perpetually defend coercion.

It is not circular logic to say:
1. Coercion is wrong.
2. Government uses coercion to achieve its ends.
3. Therefore, government is wrong.