Topic: Capitalism. - page 6. (Read 6891 times)
The world would probably be a better place, if more people tried to learn from the positive and negative aspects of economic and sociopolitical ideas rather than wasting their time complaining about them.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?
Thank you for asking directly the problem posed by my allegorical autark encounter.The assumption I'd used being the local folks make this determination. "house rules" "local custom"
That's where ye olde lex mercatoria comes in to play, to resolve the differences in house rules between the different houses.
When you contemplate the meeting of two communities and how they might interact, it raises these interesting questions.
But... this looks a bit more like minarchy than anarchy. Even for the autarks.
Another question is why ought we assume that what was before (priests and warriors) is what will be after? Why is it the one and only possible outcome that we become pre-neolithic? Lots of things have changed since then.
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it.
I guess I just never thought of it that way, or realized that was the case. In the world I grew up and lived in, it was always a familial organization, not patri- or matri-lineal one. So there wasn't any violence. At least not in "normal" society. Women did what they want, even if it includes falling in love with a single man and forming a monogamous relationship with him.
Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.
It's an error to dismiss the many negative connotations of transgenderism, sexual ambiguity, and homosexuality, yet...
Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.
It's not really wage "slavery," since if you don't like the wage, just go find another job. You won't have a posse tracking you down, hogtying you, and bringing you back to your old position. There's slavery, and there's the personal choice to work or not.
By the way, how do you have private possession of public resources? Who decided they are public or private, and why are they conflicting with each other?
Amirite?
Not yet you aren't. But I imagine you will keep at it.
I have lots of things I don't need.
One of these is a state to protect my property.
It is a poor trade in terms of cost/benefit for that purpose.
Maybe one of its other uses is a good deal, but not this one. At risk of repeating myself, what else have you got?
Lulz!
I give you a list of things, you pick out one word, and ask me "what else have you got"? Hope you're quicker with your badass gun then you are with your wit. Quote
Having something is not the same as wanting it. Like that stuff left over after everyone else has had their fill that you scrape into the dog's bowl. What do they call it again? Crumbs?
Jeez, you feed crumbs to your dog? Just how broke are you?
Amirite?
Not yet you aren't. But I imagine you will keep at it.
I have lots of things I don't need.
One of these is a state to protect my property.
It is a poor trade in terms of cost/benefit for that purpose.
Maybe one of its other uses is a good deal, but not this one. At risk of repeating myself, what else have you got?
Having something is not the same as wanting it. Like that stuff left over after everyone else has had their fill that you scrape into the dog's bowl. What do they call it again? Crumbs?
Arbitration is the anarchical origin of authority.
It is also the modern form of "lex mercatoria". Known today as mediation and binding arbitration.http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Binding+arbitration
Folks in dispute first agree on who will settle it, then present their cases to them for decision.
If you are in an autark community of matrilineal consanguineous folks, in the US (or any other place that uses non-violent non government dispute resolution), you can contractually agree on using the wise woman in big hat for resolving issues, and the government courts have to butt out.
Further if some capitalist walks into your paradise and wants to trade, this stipulation can be a part of any dealings they make in your community. Three choices: they can agree, disagree and have the dispute resolved by hat woman, or leave.
Further, so long as they aren't engaging in capitalist behavior, (things like trading, exchanging, hiring, etc) there's not much use for contracting and no need to appeal to any authority.
We have Amish communities, why not these autark matrilineal consanguines? Why wait?
If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.
Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.
Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.
Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?
I'll answer that for you:
The army is a pretty big thing, i.e. more than a couple of guys. Sometimes more than even a hundred
Paying for an army is not very similar to buying a pig, there's that whole scale issue. Just how does an individual go about paying for an army? That's right, a financial instrument is needed. And an oversight committee to manage that financial instrument & the standing army. You know what that oversight committee is called? Yup. The government.
Enjoy.
Edit: If you wish, you don't have to call this financial instrument "The Government." Call it what you wish, but, once in place, this financial instrument will be as easy to annul as today's government.
[...]None of these examples invalidates the principles of voluntary agreement and non-violence, or even lex mercatoria for that matter.
You can keep saying I need a state to defend my property, but I am happy without that state doing it. Maybe you aren't, because you keep trying to sell me on the idea of needing it, but I am not buying.
You can keep saying I need a state to defend my property, but I am happy without that state doing it. Maybe you aren't, because you keep trying to sell me on the idea of needing it, but I am not buying.
Nah. You're buying, you have always bought, and you will continue to buy in the future. You're living in and by the laws of the state, enjoying its benefits & enduring its hardships. You pay your taxes. You answer the door when the cops knock. You probably have a driver's licence. I doubt you're manning the barricades with your AR or AK. Amirite?
Quote
I have a property far away, one I don't use much. I have a friend that has done heroic things but is down on his luck. I say to my friend, "friend go and stay at my place on the beach". Take care of it and see what you can make of it. There were some squatters. They were not good custodians and were persuaded to leave without any authoritarianism or threat. If instead they had been good custodians, they easily could have stayed and shared.
In other words, your down-on-his-luck buddy reasoned with the squatters, they've seen the error of their ways & chose to leave? That choice didn't have anything to do with your buddy's shoulder holster or the likelihood that statist thugs (cops) will appear, similarly armed, if they didn't comply?
Quote
I have never called the police for anything, and never asked for anything from them. I supply my own security and am happy to remain doing so.
By security, i assume you mean "GTFO or find out how strongly i feel about non-violence," right?
Quote
The way you sound is that there are all these monsters roaming about looking to destroy and loot and steal so we need to run to our government constantly to protect stuff, but in the real world, if I have a problem with someone, I deal with it directly myself.
The lack of roaming monsters could be largely attributed to government thugs. If by "the real world" you mean your fantasy land without governments, then please regale me with stories about prehistory, or at least Somalia.
Quote
Personal security is one of the costs of personal property. If you can't afford that part of the cost, then you cant afford to own it in the first place and are better off putting the resources to some charitable purpose. Because property rights do corrode. Time is our ultimate judge, and you can't take it with you.
What he can & can't afford is irrelevant. You are an American. You have never lived in a stateless society. Your imagined fairyland has as much in common with reality as Equestria. Grow up.
...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.
If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island.
lex mercatoria
If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper. And if he didn't even work hard for it, but inherited it like the friggin Queen of England, and people around that island have no space and starve, you can be sure they'll see it as their necessity and fair right to set a foot on this island.
How would the Queen of England exist without a state?
Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism
Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?
All sorts of ways, these are some names for them.
It's rather tricky to describe behaviors linked to capitalism without using words that describe how people behave.
...and I guess I have to make myself clearer.
I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.
Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.
(...)
lex mercatoria
I'm all against state and bureaucracy and stealing and enforced taxation, but I'm also tired of this typical US Libertarian rhetoric.
Socialism vs Market-radicalism is another of these false dichotomies.
(...)
*standing ovation*
Required reading.
+1
Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism
Sorry to use that way overused meme, but I do not think that word means what you think it means. Either of those. Just so we don't go around in circles, instead of assuming that the rest of us have any clue as to what you are talking about, can you actually explain what you mean, without using words like "capitalism," "collectivism," and "matrilineal"?
I mean that the one and only possible anarchist organisation of the homines sapientes is the pre-neolithic organisation, which was matrilineal.
As soon as you want to 'organise' a patrilineal organisation, you need organised violence. But to understand all that, you need to know the patriarchy, its development and why organised violence is needed to construct and maintain it. Mater semper certus est - pater semper incertus est. Therefore, because the pater is always incertus, you need to control the sexual life of the woman, and that is organised violence.
tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.
Question
... and please, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a royal count, with a very rich family history spanning centuries, from Italy, through Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, from someone who comes from a long history of very prominent and well known scientists, who's great*3-grandfather even has a giant portrait and permanent exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ...
Why bother tracing one's lineage, whether through mothers or fathers, in the first place? What's so special about the dead people you came from?
Tracking the genetic and situational-familial predispositions that may tend towards skill in arbitration gives you an arbitrary way to distinguish arbitrators.
Kings made kings cause it was convenient.
Other than that super-marginal factor, nothing.
1) Making sure you don't inter-breed with your relatives and make mutant babies. That's one good reason for all those naming conventions.
2) Nurture, which as a concept blended-in with nepotism, was (and still is) a strong motivator to pass on knowledge and cultural things that might be useful for the next generation. In spite of the usual "history is written by the victor" claims, some history is passed on by nurture -- anything from trade secrets, through to life attitudes. People aren't primitive snakes or lizards that lay eggs and abandon the nest before they hatch.
Why single-out arbitration?
ie names have never kept cousins from kissin'
2) wut?
Behaviorist here. Western history is mainly the history of war. There are only exceptions.
See BF Skinner's 'Beyond Freedom & Dignity'
Arbitration is the anarchical origin of authority.
In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.
Correct, any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community.
But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today.
An open letter to anyone who does not accept the above text as true:
Please get hit by a train.
Sincerely, Ktyhn.
In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.
Correct, any society is by definition collectivist. The opposite of society and collectivism is the self-sufficient community.
But the hominidae can not live 'alone'. An 'individualist' life is possible within a collectivist, materialist society only. To live a non-collectivist life, the homines sapientes need the organisation of the non-patriarchal, anarchal, consanguineal community, which was organised non-monogamous, matrilineal (female choice), wherever it existed in the whole history of mankind, and which have been destroyed, slowly starting about 10'000 years ago, by organised violence of a complicity of priests and militarists, which is terrorising the planet until today.
In that case, why not simply track relationships (family, friends, and business) and networks same as we do now? We are already slowly abandoning the idea of gender affecting our relationship and interaction with people, thanks to gender being mostly invisible online.
Why... not?The sooner the akashic record is downloadable, the better.
Back to capitalism.
It is an error to dismiss the negative connotations of the word.
Capitalism is intrinsically linked to wage slavery and violently private posession of all public resources.
In that case, why not simply track relationships (family, friends, and business) and networks same as we do now? We are already slowly abandoning the idea of gender affecting our relationship and interaction with people, thanks to gender being mostly invisible online.
tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.
Question
... and please, keep in mind that this is coming from someone who is a royal count, with a very rich family history spanning centuries, from Italy, through Poland, Russia, and Ukraine, from someone who comes from a long history of very prominent and well known scientists, who's great*3-grandfather even has a giant portrait and permanent exhibit at the National Air and Space Museum in Washington DC ...
Why bother tracing one's lineage, whether through mothers or fathers, in the first place? What's so special about the dead people you came from?
Tracking the genetic and situational-familial predispositions that may tend towards skill in arbitration gives you an arbitrary way to distinguish arbitrators.
Kings made kings cause it was convenient.
Other than that super-marginal factor, nothing.
If some rich ass owns an island on the other side of the world, it's just a piece of paper.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.
Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.
...
Thus the concept of property only makes sense when there is a (military) force, mostly supplied by a state, behind it that can protect it.
Say you own a piece of land with a house far away. What you're gonna do against squatters? Today, you'd call the police, right? Also supplied by the state.
Please answer this question, as no one ever does: Who paid for that military force or that police, and why can't they pay for it directly if there was no government?
Jump to: