Topic: Anarchy =~ Communism - page 4. (Read 9757 times)

To Paraphrase Valentine M. Smith, Thou art Satoshi.

Or maybe both you, myrkul, and smellyBobby are satoshi...

I think you are two different people.

There's no way you can be this rational one moment and as irrational and troll-like the next.

Edit: Or maybe.... You're actually Satoshi, testing us?

I agree with the arbitrary part.

However misusing words is common in this forum. I don't think anyone can disagree with that. And we can not have fruitful discussions without an adherence to the definition of words.

The island model is a simple conceptualization of possible human interactions. Use the island model to reach a point of understanding over words and ideas. We can use the island model to clearly distinguish our differences over certain types of human behavior.

The island model can then be used to justify why one outcome is favorable over another in terms of human behavior.

Of course the island model will never be able to capture every aspect of human behavior, but what model can? At the moment half the content on this forum is disputes over what words mean. If we can't come to an agreement over words then what is the point in using words?

A few things on the island.

An island obviously represents an isolated community. It shows how one outcome in one community can dramatically effect the welfare of others.

The island model should be used to separate ideas into two different levels. The micro level of the individual and the surrounding the community and the small community interacting on the macro-level. By distinguishing between the levels it is simpler to build a statement and show the reasoning behind the statement. Disagreement can be shown in terms of levels. By distinguishing the two levels it can be shown the outcome of one level upon the other.

If statements are going to be expressed in an imperative mood then the island model should easily show correctness. Otherwise it is likely the statement is false.

The island removes the idea of government and reduces coercive force to minimums. I have shown how authority arises from an innocent situation. We disagree on is the likely-hood of such a situation and its relevance. What we are really disagreeing on is a fundamental aspect of human nature, how a small component of the individual shapes the entire community. And this is good IMO. This shows where we disagree, and can walk away. Also historical literature can be used to justify one outcome over another.

The island is an important abstraction until there is better agreement over word definitions. Consequently I think it should be refined and used more.

Also: Yes, Arbitrary model is arbitrary.

I think you'll enjoy it.  It's the authors first professional publication so the writing is a little stiff at the beginning, but I thought it developed nicely.  Well worth the read, IMO.

Oooo... That book looks nice.

But suppose that one of the five people on the free island is a former  special forces Marine who believes in anarchy.  He offers his protection and arbitration services to anyone who will pay for it.  The Others are afraid of him because he has a tatoo proving he's completed the 9th order of the Proving so they leave his clients alone. 


Basically, I don't think we are going to learn anything from this island model because we can make it as arbitrary as we choose. 

Assuming that they do not engage in an age of colonization . Like the British, French, Spanish, etc.

Driven by greed and the need to increase profits, the 5 in-control train their slaves for war. They go on expeditions to conquer the other islands so they can have more slaves and get more coconuts.

Back where we are today, descendants of exploitation and slavery.

No, then we have an empty island, ripe for re-colonization from the other islands. Survival of the fittest.

Sure, I did make the example restrictive.

Take 5 islands for example, all with the 5 people. I would say that it would be reasonable to think that the scenario I outlined would occur on one of the islands. However over an extended period of time, humans driven by their greed would result in at-least 4 of the 5 islands enslaving any new-comer.

But this example only needs to occur once, then we are back where we are today. Some people at the top who have control of essential resources enslaving everyone else. Colluding between themselves for the slaves.

Of course! I neglected government and pseudo-government agencies!

The FED replaced the system of independent banks.
The US Military replaced the individual (and occasionally private) militias.
I'm sure there are more, I just can't think of any off the top of my head.

I think the Federal Reserve may be an example of the government "breaking up" an oligopoly and replacing it with a monopoly.  The Federal Reserve Act was written by a bunch of bankers to give themselves a monopoly on the banking system and passed by the government.

'let me' ... you're funny.

As it happens, I couldn't find any oligopolies that were broken up at all. The closest I could come is Standard Oil, which wasn't even a monopoly, really. So, I retract my previous statement, and replace it with this one: The government is completely inept at breaking up oligopolies.

Still waiting for you to provide evidence for your statement that oligopolies are turned into a monopoly through government break up.

I'm not going to let you skip out on this one.

If it's that easy to change the rules you need a stronger government, not a weaker one. I don't understand your way of thinking. "The companies have a hard time following the rules, so let's just remove the rules". How does that help?

The second sentence is a good example of a bad practice, and something that shouldn't be allowed. I've expressed that view before, although perhaps not in this thread.

"100'x100'", huh?

Well of course, because you make them mean whatever you want them to mean to suit your current argument.

I use only the commonly accepted defintions which can easily be found in any English dictionary.

In order for me to prove anything to you, We'll need to share a language. And while all the words you use are English, I don't think we define most of them the same way.