Topic: Capitalism. - page 7. (Read 6891 times)

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?

...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.

Total world-wide equality and solidarity is an illusion, but non-corroding property rights at the individual level are an illusion as well. You need a state to enforce such property rights. 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. If they are civilized enough to know there's a paper that says someone owns that island at all in the first place, that is. They'll give a shit about any lex mercatoria.

From that perspective, property underlies the laws of entropy, just like anything in the universe.

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.

So, again: property is just a piece of paper.

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.

And are these squatters just lazy bums and deserve it? No, maybe they're just from poor families, never could get proper education in Aynrandistan. They weren't lucky enough to be privileged and inherit land just like you. That's how social strains come about in the first place.

"Supplied by the state", but these forces can also be supplied by private organizations, you say? But what difference does it make to a state? That it's more "voluntary"? Also today you can vote with your feet. So the question is only about scale here.

Or, to put things in another way: If you (really) own some land, then you are the state of that land. And you're a dictator even at that. There's no essential difference between your idea of property and a state. Only about scale.

At the end of the day, without a state, you can only call property what you can defend yourself. Just how Max Stirner, an individualist anarchist puts it:

"Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property."

This is much more logical than the US Libertarian view. And once you understand that, you'll see that a more co-operative and syndicalist way of self-organizing is just more rational and more economical.

I'm against and above binary gender roles. Gender roles in a more fittingly complex framework are part of everyone's personality, will and identity.
Biological functions like thought and pregnancy- egg fertilization, are coincidental to gender, but determine the generation of the species.
Dominance is not relevent here. tracing one's lineage through mothers of any gender is the crucial part, as opposed to relying on state documents.

In that sense, any society is "collectivist", as long as you don't move alone into the mountains and live there sulf-sufficiently.

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"?

It has to do with the topic, with Capitalism, which is a form of collectivism, which always was archist, which is the opposite of anarchist, which has always been matrilineal.

Ok, I may have misunderstood, but then, could you please explain what the hell "determining decent through the female line" has to do with absolutely anything at all here?

I think you missed my point. Unless I misunderstood "matrilineal community" as still having specifically defined gender roles with the female being the dominant one as opposed to the male one we have now. I'm against the idea of gender roles.

I agree with everything in this post.

You know nothing about anthropology. The absence of monogamous, sexist patriarchy has never been a sexist matriarchy. It was matrilineal anarchy.

"Information can not be destroyed" stops being a catchy phrase once you ask yourself "what do i mean?"  Then it turns into something trivial like "love can not be destroyed":  sure, you can stop loving, though the concept itself persists.  Just like you can forget something, or beat up a HD with a sledgehammer, and you'll no longer have access to that information.  If yours was the only copy, nno one else would have access to it either.  Is it destroyed?  Well, what are we talking about?
How can you kill that which does not live? BoooOOooOooOo

Information cannot be destroyed. Practices become distorted, however.
It does not parse that any structure is "dead."

Anti male sexism is a vastly misrepresented myth.
Misogyny is real.
We are not and have never been dealing with mirror images, but a varied amalgamation of cues, traits and norms.
In order to explain this, a full course in radical feminism would be needed.
Perhaps another thread.

Edit: here's the thread:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2563187

I could have a more cerebral & satisfying discussions with a rusty shovel.  All i'd have to do is write on it "No U R RONG!" and its replies would offer more finesse & erudition.
If i was really bored, i could spin the most intricate web of logic & bejewel it with the cleverest facts strung together by the most elegant of derivations...  The end result would stay the same: The shovel would, invariably, conclude: "NO U R RONG!"
Has the shovel amused me with its sparkling intellect?  I suppose.  Though you gotta agree, you're getting tedious.  I think it's best to let you get back to digging ditches.  Now GTFO of the van.

It's called context, sweety. 

"How does capitalism require a state?"
"To protect your property."
"If I'm happy to let lex mercatoria suffice for that, have you anything else?"

Now reread the thread, K tiger?

Crumbs, I don't see anywhere in that post of yours where Lex Mercatoria was suggested for anything other than "To protect your property." Did you forget to quote something?

You jest.  See boldface below:



You're saying you trolled me?  You were speaking figuratively?  You seemed pretty resolute about defending this lex mercatoria as a sufficient law set.  You'd like to retract?


Let's stop playing around & have them, in that case.  Offer up.


Please.  The "useful" argument is dishonest.  If i see you advocating a perpetual motion engine, do you expect me to keep quiet unless i can offer a better one?  Do you really want to waste your life building an inherently & impossibly flawed machine, or would you like someone to point out your project is doomed to failure from the moment you start?

You are wrong if you are referring to how anyone but you has brought up the notion of lex mercatoria.
The idea that it is ideal, or the sole body of law in its entirety is your idea alone, and you offered it in that vein apparently in order to dismiss it as such.  It appears that no one disagrees with you on that.

Others have suggested that it was an historical example of a method of non-violent, non-governmental dispute resolution. 
A historical example was used because it can be looked at in static form as it was, rather than something current which is still evolving.
There exist other examples by different names throughout history which use the same principles.
This was in the context of trying to figure out whether trade requires violence. 
There may remain some disagreement as to whether trade requires violence. 
Do you have a position on that, or anything at all useful to comment on?

Lol!  It's cuter that you don't!
Pay attention -- lex mercatoria was brought up in this thread as the ideal, sole body of law, in it's entirety.  Not as a handy subset to be followed by merchants in international trade. Now GTF in the van, baby!